Study on the economic impact
of short stay visa facilitation on
the tourism industry and on the
overall economies of EU
Member States being part of the
Schengen Area
DG Enterprise and Industry
August 2013
1
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Prepared by
Karin Attström, Mathilde Heegaard Bausager, Ida Maegaard
Nielsen, Jonathan Leonardsen, Troels Nybro Hansen,
Anthony Mercer
© European Union, 2013
This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects
the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any
use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
For more information about the European Tourism Policy, please visit
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 1
1.
Introduction ............................................................................................ 5
1.1
Study objectives ...................................................................................... 5
1.2
Study methodology .................................................................................. 5
1.3
Report structure ...................................................................................... 8
2.
Background............................................................................................. 9
2.1
Findings from the literature review ............................................................. 9
2.2
Current trends and patterns .....................................................................14
3.
Current practices and issues in the implementation of the Visa Code .............20
3.1
Findings from the desk review ..................................................................20
3.2
Findings of the survey to Schengen consulates ...........................................23
3.3
Conclusions on visa practices and tentative facilitation measures ..................40
4.
Issues experienced by travellers ...............................................................42
4.1
Findings from panel survey with travellers .................................................42
4.2
Findings from survey with travel agents ....................................................64
5.
Economic impact model ...........................................................................73
5.1
Problem analysis: verified problem ...........................................................73
5.2
Selection of scenarios ..............................................................................75
5.3
Economic impact analysis ........................................................................85
5.4
Impact of possible facilitation measures ....................................................99
5.5
Cost-benefit analysis ............................................................................. 116
6.
Conclusions of the study ........................................................................ 134
6.1
Issues in the implementation of the Visa Code.......................................... 134
6.2
The main issues seen from the travellers perspective ................................ 135
6.3
Preferred solutions by the travellers ........................................................ 135
6.4
The most cost-beneficial option(s) .......................................................... 136
7.
Recommendations for the future ............................................................. 138
7.1
Recommendations addressing the requirement to meet in person ............... 140
7.2
Recommendations addressing the requirements for supporting documents .. 142
7.3
Recommendations addressing the need for increasing flexibility.................. 143
Annexes
Annex I: Bibliography ..........................................................................................
Annex II: Mapping of visa practices .......................................................................
Annex III: List of surveyed Travel Agents and Tour Operators ...................................
Annex IV: Questionnaire – survey of Schengen consulates .......................................
Annex V: Questionnaire – survey of travel agents ....................................................
Annex VI: Data sources for the EIA and CBA ...........................................................
Annex VII: Additional tables for the economic impact analysis ...................................
Annex VIII: Case examples – visa facilitation measures from PL and CZ .....................
Annex IX: Table overview of data for economic impact model and CBA ......................
Annex X: Copy of all tables from EIA and CBA in Excel format ...................................
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
List of Tables
Table 1: Complex vs. simple procedure ............................................................................ 22
Table 2: Response rate per target market ......................................................................... 23
Table 3: Response rate per Schengen MS ......................................................................... 23
Table 4: Type of documentation for proof of means ............................................................ 32
Table 5: Most common ground of refusal for leisure travellers by the location of consulate ...... 36
Table 6: Common grounds for refusal of C-visa for business travellers by the location of
consulate ...................................................................................................................... 38
Table 7: Do you have any fast track system in place? (N=96) ............................................. 39
Table 8: Travel experience of the survey population ........................................................... 42
Table 9: Gender of respondents, percentage ..................................................................... 43
Table 10: Age of respondents, percentage ........................................................................ 43
Table 11: Category of respondents ................................................................................... 53
Table 12: Scenarios for modification of the visa processing - selection grid ........................... 77
Table 13: Description and assessment of scenarios ............................................................ 78
Table 14: Current number of travellers per target country, 2012 (in 1 000) ......................... 86
Table 15: Annual growth factor ........................................................................................ 87
Table 16 "Non-issued visa" rates for C-visas to the Schengen area, 2012 .............................. 88
Table 17: Travellers lost due to current visa practices, per target country, year 1 (in 1 000
persons) ....................................................................................................................... 90
Table 18: Baseline (current level of travellers) + potential number of travellers, year 1 (in
1 000 persons) ............................................................................................................. 90
Table 19: Minimum number of lost travellers, year 1-5 (in 1 000) ....................................... 91
Table 20: Travellers lost due to current visa practices, in year 1, divided by purpose of trip .... 92
Table 21: Average spending per stay, (in EUR 2012-prices) ................................................ 93
Table 22: Direct economic impact of travellers lost (million EUR) ......................................... 94
Table 23: Lost contribution to GDP, year 1 (million EUR) ..................................................... 96
Table 24: Lost contribution to GDP, years 1-5 (million EUR) ................................................ 97
Table 25: Lost travellers' effect on employment, number of lost jobs, year 1-5 ...................... 98
Table 26: Increase in tourism per target country, year 1, (in 1 000 persons) ....................... 100
Table 27: Direct economic impact of visa facilitation scenarios, "conservative" and "probable"
spending scenario, year 1 (million EUR) .......................................................................... 101
Table 28: Spending per sector for the Schengen tourism industry, "conservative" and "probable"
spending scenario, year 1 (million EUR) .......................................................................... 102
Table 29: Scenarios’ contribution to the Schengen GDP, "conservative" and "probable" spending
scenarios, year 1 (million EUR) ...................................................................................... 104
Table 30: Additional travellers' effect on employment, number of additional jobs, per scenario,
year 1 ........................................................................................................................ 105
Table 31: Summary of impacts in year 1 ......................................................................... 107
Table 32: Cumulative (years 1-5) increase in travellers for each scenario (in 1 000 persons) 108
Table 33: Cumulative (years 1-5) direct spending effect (million EUR) ................................ 110
Table 34: Cumulative (year 1-5) contribution to employment ............................................ 111
Table 35: Economic impact assessment of the "Combi" scenario compared to baseline and the
individual policy options, year 1 ..................................................................................... 112
Table 36: Potential direct spending, "Combi" scenario compared with baseline, year 1-5 (in
million EUR) ................................................................................................................ 113
Table 37: Direct contribution to employment, "Combi" scenario compared with baseline, number
of jobs, year 1-5 .......................................................................................................... 113
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 38: Potential increase in number of travellers, "Combi" scenario compared with baseline
and individual policy options, year 1-5 (in 1 000 travellers).............................................. 114
Table 39: Top 10 visa travellers (in 2012) ....................................................................... 115
Table 40: Assumptions ................................................................................................. 118
Table 41: Growth factor ................................................................................................ 119
Table 42: Costs from revised visa facilitation (all scenarios) .............................................. 119
Table 43: Spending per additional number of travellers, (in euros) ..................................... 120
Table 44: Visa fee, (in euros) ........................................................................................ 121
Table 45: Travellers in 1 000 ........................................................................................ 121
Table 46: Visas issued as MEVs ..................................................................................... 122
Table 47: Online application - Cash flow, "conservative" and "probable" spending scenario
(million EUR) ............................................................................................................... 123
Table 48: Less documentary requirements - Cash flow, "conservative" and "probable" spending
scenario (million EUR) .................................................................................................. 124
Table 49: MEV - Cash flow, "conservative" and "probable" spending scenario (million EUR) ... 125
Table 50: Longer validity - Cash flow, "conservative" and "probable" spending scenario (million
EUR) .......................................................................................................................... 126
Table 51: Cash flows, "conservative" and "probable" spending scenario (million EUR)........... 127
Table 52: Cost-benefit analysis ...................................................................................... 128
Table 53: Effect analysis of critical variables .................................................................... 129
Table 54: Critical variable for economic analysis .............................................................. 130
Table 55: Total additional travellers, -/+ 10 % ............................................................... 130
Table 56: Purchase/import, -/+ 5 percentage points ........................................................ 131
Table 57: Social discount rate, -/+ 1 percentage point ..................................................... 132
Table 58: Scenario analysis ........................................................................................... 133
Annexed tables
Table 59: Travellers lost due to current visa practices divided on Member State, (in 1 000) . 165
Table 60: Annual lost spending of travellers per Member State and target country, "Low"
scenario (in million EUR) ............................................................................................... 166
Table 61: Annual lost spending of travellers per Member State and target country, "High"
scenario (in million EUR) ............................................................................................... 167
Table 62: Annual lost spending by travellers per Member State and sector, "Low" scenario
(million EUR) ............................................................................................................... 168
Table 63: Annual lost spending by travellers per Member State and sector, "High" scenario
(million EUR) ............................................................................................................... 170
Table 64: Potential increase in number of travellers per Member State, (in 1,000) ............... 172
Table 65: Total annual spending by additional travellers per policy option and sector, "Low"
scenario (million EUR) .................................................................................................. 173
Table 66: Total annual spending by additional travellers per policy option and sector, "High"
scenario (million EUR) .................................................................................................. 173
Table 67: Total additional annual spending by additional travellers per Member State and policy
option, "Low" scenario (million EUR)............................................................................... 174
Table 68: Total additional annual spending by additional travellers per Member State and policy
option, "High" scenario (million EUR) .............................................................................. 175
Table 69: Contribution to GDP, (million EUR) ................................................................... 176
List of Figures
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
1:
2:
3:
4:
Overview of study approach ............................................................................... 6
Number of C-visas issued 2010-2012 (including MEVs) ......................................... 14
C-visas issued in target markets, by Member State (percentage) 2010-2012 ........... 15
Visas not issued in target countries 2010-2012 .................................................... 16
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 5: Issued MEVs per target country, as percentage of total ......................................... 17
Figure 6: Share of MEV in percentage of total C-visas issued, per Member State .................... 19
Figure 7: Flowchart of typical visa application .................................................................... 21
Figure 8: What is the average decision making time in days from when the application is handed
in at the consulate? (N=96) ............................................................................................ 24
Figure 9: How do you cope with peak periods for visa applications (holidays etc.)? (N=99) ..... 25
Figure 10: When lodging an application, the applicant: (N=96) ............................................ 26
Figure 11: When collecting their passport, the applicant: (N=96) ......................................... 26
Figure 12: Main destination ............................................................................................. 28
Figure 13: Purpose of stay .............................................................................................. 29
Figure 14: Statement from Travel Agent and Travel itinerary............................................... 30
Figure 15: Insurance certificates ...................................................................................... 31
Figure 16: Proof of means ............................................................................................... 32
Figure 17: What amount of euros does the consulate assess as sufficient funds for entering the
Schengen Area? (N=97) ................................................................................................. 33
Figure 18: Supporting documents for dependents .............................................................. 34
Figure 19: What are the language requirements for supporting documents? (N=96) .............. 35
Figure 20: What is the most common ground for C-visa refusal for leisure travellers? (N=100) 36
Figure 21: What is the most common ground for C-visa refusal for business travellers? (N=98)
................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 22: Has the consulate implemented any facilitation of procedures? (N=96) ................. 39
Figure 23: In your opinion, what common issues raised by visa applicants in relation to the
Schengen visa could be modified or simplified? (N=94) ...................................................... 40
Figure 24: Do you generally travel as…? (N=1540) ............................................................ 44
Figure 25: How often do you on average travel abroad for leisure? (N=1540) ....................... 44
Figure 26: How often do you on average travel abroad for business? (N=1540) ..................... 45
Figure 27: How important are the visa requirements when you decide on a travel destination?
(N=1540) ..................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 28: How long in advance do you generally plan your travels? (N=1830) ...................... 46
Figure 29: Reasons for not considering travelling to Europe (Schengen) in the coming 5 years
(N=111) ....................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 30: To what degree do you perceive the requirement to meet in person at the consulate
to be a problem when applying for a Schengen visa? (N=1540) ........................................... 48
Figure 31: To what degree do you perceive the type and nature of the required supporting
documents to be a problem when applying for a Schengen visa? (N=1540) ........................... 49
Figure 32: To what degree do you perceive the time necessary for receiving a visa to be a
problem when applying for a Schengen visa? (N=1540) ...................................................... 49
Figure 33: To what degree do you perceive the uncertainty of outcome of application to be a
problem when applying for a Schengen visa? (N=1540) ...................................................... 50
Figure 34: To what degree do you perceive the overall cost of the visa to be a problem when
applying for a Schengen visa? (N=1540) .......................................................................... 50
Figure 35: To what degree do you perceive the requirement to have a medical insurance to be a
problem when applying for a Schengen visa? (N=1540) ...................................................... 51
Figure 36: To what degree do you perceive difficulty in understanding the visa application
requirements to be a problem when applying for a Schengen visa? (N=1540) ....................... 52
Figure 37: To what degree do you perceive the attitude of the Consular staff to be a problem
when applying for a Schengen visa? (N=1540) .................................................................. 52
Figure 38: Overview of all scenarios, current travellers and potential first-time travellers (total,
across countries), percentage (Current travellers (CT) = 1239; First-time travellers (FT) = 301)
................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 39: Visa-free travel to the Schengen area from your country, percentage (Current
travellers (CT) = 1239; First-time travellers (FT) = 301) .................................................... 55
Figure 40: Online application procedure, percentage (Current travellers (CT) = 1239; First-time
travellers (FT) = 301) ..................................................................................................... 56
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 41: Shorter time to receive a visa, percentage (Current travellers (CT) = 1239; Firsttime travellers (FT) = 301) ............................................................................................. 57
Figure 42: Lower cost to receive a visa, percentage (Current travellers (CT) = 1239; First-time
travellers (FT) = 301) ..................................................................................................... 57
Figure 43: Easier access to consulate(s), percentage (Current travellers (CT) = 1239; First-time
travellers (FT) = 301) ..................................................................................................... 58
Figure 44: Less documentary/administrative requirements, percentage (Current travellers (CT)
= 1239; First-time travellers (FT) = 301).......................................................................... 59
Figure 45: Better information from consulates, percentage (Current travellers (CT) = 1239;
First-time travellers (FT) = 301) ...................................................................................... 59
Figure 46: Better service from consular staff, percentage (Current travellers (CT) = 1239; Firsttime travellers (FT) = 301) ............................................................................................. 60
Figure 47: Multi-Entry Visas rather than single entry visas, percentage (Current travellers (CT)
= 1239; First-time travellers (FT) = 301).......................................................................... 60
Figure 48: A visa with longer validity, percentage (Current travellers (CT) = 1239; First-time
travellers (FT) = 301) ..................................................................................................... 61
Figure 49: Possibility for visa on arrival, percentage (Current travellers (CT) = 1239; First-time
travellers (FT) = 301) ..................................................................................................... 62
Figure 50: Decision factors (in number of respondents, N=26) ............................................ 65
Figure 51: Most common problems (in number of respondents, N=26) ................................. 66
Figure 52: How long in advance do your clients generally make a firm booking? (in number of
respondents, N=26) ....................................................................................................... 67
Figure 53: Potential impact of visa facilitation measures (in number of respondents, N=26) .... 69
Figure 54: Intervention logic for selected scenarios ............................................................ 84
Figure 55: Baseline – natural growth in number of travellers from the six target markets to the
Schengen area, over five years (in million travellers) ......................................................... 87
Figure 56: Division of lost expenditure on tourism sectors for a “conservative” and “probable”
spending scenario, year 1 ............................................................................................... 95
Figure 57: Development in no. of travellers, year 1-5 (in million persons) ........................... 108
Figure 58: Direct spending (conservative spending scenarios), years 1-5 (billion EUR) ......... 109
Figure 59: Direct spending (“probable” spending scenarios), years 1-5 (billion EUR) ............ 109
Figure 60: Contribution to employment (conservative spending scenario), years 1-5 (in 1 000
persons) ..................................................................................................................... 110
Figure 61: Contribution to employment (“probable” spending scenario), years 1-5 (in 1 000
persons) ..................................................................................................................... 111
Figure 62: Number of travellers, “combi” scenario compared with baseline and individual policy
options, year 1 (in million travellers) .............................................................................. 114
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Executive Summary
The objective of the study has been to evaluate the current implementation of the
common visa provisions in the Schengen area from the tourism industry/travellers'
viewpoint, and to develop and implement a methodology to assess the economic
impact of visa facilitation. The report furthermore proposes solutions to identified
problems, suggests good practices and makes policy recommendations based on the
evidence collected. A security/risk assessment was not the objective of this study, and
has not been included as a factor in the economic impact assessment. However, it has
been included in the assessment of possible visa facilitation options.
The study has focused on travellers to the Schengen area from six target markets:
China, India, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Ukraine.
Together, travellers from these six markets comprised almost two thirds of the visa
travellers to the Schengen area in 2012, adding up to, in total, 9.3 million visitors
from the target markets. Furthermore, these countries are foreseen as strong growth
markets for international outbound tourism, with Chinese and Russian travellers, in
particular, already among the top five tourism spenders globally.
Primary data has been collected from Schengen Member States’ consulates, Travel
Agents and Tour Operators. A panel survey was conducted among current and
potential travellers to the Schengen area, asking respondents about their travel
habits, preferences, perceptions and opinions about the Schengen visa practices, as
well as their preferred facilitation options. The findings in the current study mainly
capture views of individuals who have already travelled to the Schengen area and/or
elsewhere. In order to take the potential “new travellers” into account, a forecasted
growth factor has been included in all calculations.
The economic impact of tourists lost
Findings from the surveys show that the Schengen area is considered a highly
desirable destination in all target markets, underlining the potential for growth in
these markets. 90 % of the sampled travellers in general travelled mainly for
business or leisure purposes, with leisure travellers as clearly the largest group.
The study has ascertained that the current Schengen visa regime has had a clear
impact on the travelling to the Schengen area since its implementation in 2010. While
it has certainly contributed to more harmonised visa procedures, it also has an impact
in terms of deterring or constricting access for both tourists and business travellers to
the Schengen area, as any visa system does. According to our estimations, in 2012, a
total of 6.6 million potential travellers from the six target markets were “lost” due to
the Schengen area visa regime.
Based on average spending figures, this means that the tourism industry in the
Schengen area loses out on a potential EUR 5.5 billion in direct contribution to GDP
every year, adding up to approximately 113 000 jobs in the tourism industry and
related sectors. Taking into account a forecasted growth rate in the number of
travellers from the six countries, this leads to 34.8 million travellers lost over five
years.
Each euro spent in the tourism industry also generates wider effects in other parts of
the economy through salaries, consumption, trade and investments. When including
these so called indirect and induced effects the total contribution lost amounts to EUR
August 2013
1
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
12.7 billion per year. Taking into account direct, indirect and induced effects, the
Schengen area could gain up to 242 000 jobs per year if there were no visa
requirements for travellers from the target countries.
Issues with the implementation of the Visa Code
The results of the study to a large extent confirm the remarks and issues brought up
by industry and tourism associations in recent years. It is clear that the current
Schengen visa practices are cumbersome and complicated from the applicants’
perspective, and that the harmonisation intended by the Visa Code has not been fully
achieved.
A certain conclusion to be drawn from the study is that time is an issue for
travellers, and the Schengen visa procedure is considered quite time-consuming.
All sources indicate that at least five of the six target markets are to a large extent
characterised by late bookings, i.e. 30 days or less in advance (South Africa being the
exception to the rule, representing another aspect of the time issue, with travellers
wishing to acquire visas more than three months ahead of departure). In this
perspective, a prospective time frame of up to a month for acquiring a Schengen visa
is considered a deterring factor, for leisure travellers in particular, when choosing their
destination.
From a traveller’s perspective, all the steps involved in a regular application
procedure, i.e. collecting the supporting documents required, possibly having them
translated, getting an appointment, lodging and collecting the application in person,
adds up to a very time-consuming process. Thus, it is not as much the time spent by
the consulate on processing the visa application that constitutes an issue, as it is the
time invested in the process as a whole.
Time is an (or the) issue, particularly in relation to the requirement to meet in
person at the consulate and the type and nature of the required supporting
documents (including the sometimes applied requirement for translations). These
particular issues were already indicated in a review of existing literature and were
clearly confirmed by the consulates, travellers and travel agents surveyed.
Preferred solutions by the travellers
Travellers and travel agents to a large extent agreed on four preferred solutions to the
abovementioned issues. The scenarios, which they estimated would have the largest
effect on travellers’ interest in travelling (more) to the Schengen area and on the
number of trips to Schengen countries sold by travel agents, were: Visa on arrival;
Visa-free travel; Multiple-Entry Visa (MEV) and Visa with longer validity.
Both visa on arrival and visa-free entry would of course completely eliminate the
abovementioned time issue and related problems, but neither option is, at this point in
time, a feasible solution from both a legal and security perspective.
While MEVs would facilitate subsequent entries to the Schengen area, problems
related to first-time travel would remain. Visas with longer validity would provide more
flexibility in terms of travel dates etc., rendering the processing time less problematic.
2
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Ranked up there with the abovementioned preferred options were also some other
facilitation measures, namely online application procedure and less documentary
requirements.
These more directly address the problems related to the time issue, as an online
application procedure could imply waiving the requirement to meet in person, and
were, as such, also endorsed by a majority of the surveyed consulates as plausible
options for visa facilitation.
The potential of visa facilitation measures
Visa liberalisation is currently not an option for the six target markets. However,
different initiatives can be put in place to make the visa application smoother and
quicker from the applicant’s perspective. The economic model has estimated the likely
impact of different facilitation initiatives, in terms of generating additional travellers,
revenue and ultimately jobs. The findings show that, by tackling the main issues with
the current visa regime and practices, an increase in trips to the Schengen area of
between 30 and 60 % could be expected, from the six target markets of the study.
Different facilitation scenarios could lead to a total of 13 to 14 million travellers,
leading to between EUR 22 to 25 billion in total direct spending per year.
Over five years, this could mean as much as between EUR 120 and 130 billion in total
direct spending, translating into between 1.2 and 1.3 million jobs in tourism and
related sectors.
By implementing different facilitation measures in parallel, additional value could be
generated. A combination scenario was explored in the study, which showed a
potential benefit of a total of EUR 138 billion in direct spending over five years, thus
bringing greater benefits than any single facilitation measure (and almost on a par
with a visa free regime).
It can thus be concluded that visa facilitation would clearly benefit the tourism sector
and the economies of the Schengen area.
Recommended facilitation actions
As a general remark, the added value of some of the required supporting documents
and other elements of the Schengen visa procedure (in particular the requirement to
meet in person) are questionable. The purpose of the required supporting documents
and the procedure is to screen applicants and ensure that only individuals with valid
reasons to visit the Schengen area are granted a visa. Currently, the refusal rates for
the target markets are very low (2% on average), which, assuming that the current
visa practices are efficient in detecting non-eligible travellers, indicates that these are
relatively low-risk countries.
From this perspective, and seen in the light of the potential gain for the economies of
the Schengen area, there is a clear rationale for implementing (further) facilitation
measures and/or revising the Visa Code to address the identified problems. The study
has identified the following possible actions as particularly pertinent, based on an
assessment of both estimated impact and feasibility.
August 2013
3
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Issue to be
addressed
Non-legislative actions
Review of Visa Code
Requirement to
meet in person
Possible actions:
 Online application system, waiving
requirement to meet in person (as
allowed for in current Visa Code)
 System of accredited travel agents
Possible actions:
 Revise
art.
10,
removing
requirement to meet in person for
all persons who have lawfully
travelled to the Schengen area
before.
Targeted travellers:
Frequent/known travellers
Requirements for
supporting
documents

Targeted travellers:
 Frequent/second-time
travellers

Possible actions:
Review and simplify requirements
for supporting documents as
applied by the MSs
 E-voucher scheme
Possible actions:
 Review and revision of art. 14
Targeted travellers:
All travellers
Targeted travellers:
 All travellers
Possible actions:
 Encourage MSs to make wider use
of issuing MEVs
Possible actions:
 Issue MEVs with longer validity
Targeted travellers:
Frequent/known travellers
Targeted travellers:
 Frequent/known travellers
Possible actions:
Encourage MSs/consulates to issue
visas with more flexible period of
validity, within the existing 90
days maximum for short-stays
(amendment of Schengen Visa
Handbook required)
Possible actions:
 Introduce longer/ more flexible
period of validity, within the
existing 90 days maximum for
short-stays (amendment of art.
29(1) and annex VIII)
Targeted travellers:
All travellers
Targeted travellers:
 All travellers

Increasing
flexibility



Schengen
There may, in fact, be increased positive effects to be gained from an approach that
combines several initiatives. But regardless of the chosen elements and combination,
it is recommended to embark on a harmonised and coordinated approach, in terms of
both design and implementation, to support the objective of the Schengen visa system
and Code, namely to achieve more harmonisation among the Member States’ practices
for issuing visas, and to increase transparency in the Schengen visa regime, from the
applicant’s perspective.
4
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
1. Introduction
Ramboll Management Consulting and Eurasylum have been selected by DG Enterprise
and Industry to undertake a study on the economic impact of short stay visa
facilitation in the Schengen countries. This report constitutes the draft final report of
the study.
1.1
Study objectives
The objective of the study is to evaluate the current implementation of the common
visa provisions in the Schengen Area from the tourism industry/travellers' viewpoint,
and to develop and implement a methodology to assess the economic impact of visa
facilitation.
Specifically the study should:







Describe the current practices in implementing the Schengen Visa Code;
Verify the problematic issues raised by the industry and/or identifying additional
ones;
Analyse in-depth the practices representing an obstacle to potential visa
applicants;
Establish a methodology to assess, and implementing it to assess, the loss of
tourist flows and its economic impact;
Propose possible solutions to solve the identified problems;
Suggest good practices for simplifying visa procedures;
Make policy recommendations.
The study focuses on travellers from six target markets, China, India, The Russian
Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Ukraine.
1.2
Study methodology
The study relies on a large amount of both primary and secondary data. A list of the
secondary data sources (used mainly in the literature review and the economic
modelling) can be found in the bibliography in annex I.
Figure 1 below illustrates the study and approach, outlining the different steps taken
in the analysis, the data used and the outcomes of the different steps. As such, the
figure also portrays the epistemological process of the study.
August 2013
5
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 1: Overview of study approach
Literature
review
•Input: Review of existing studies and statistics on Schengen visa processing
•Outcome: Understanding of trends, patterns and issues related to Schengen tourism
and visa issuance; feeding into survey design.
•Input: internet-based mapping of visa practices (review of consulates' websites) and
online survey to Schengen consulates in target markets
Mapping of •Outcome: understanding of the practical implementation of Schengen visa practices
and consulates' view on current practices and possible facilitation.
visa
practices
Travellers'
view on
visa
practices
Economic
impact
model
Policy
recommend
ations
•Input: surveys with travellers and travel agents from the six target markets on current
Schengen visa procedure and potential facilitation measures
•Outcome: understanding of travellers' preferences in choosing travel destinations,
importance of visa practices, views on current Schengen visa practices, and different
facilitation scenarios' potential to influence travellers behaviour.
•Problem definition: summing up on the issues related to Schengen visa processing,
identified in previous analyses
•Outline of potential policy options: assessment of the different options for visa
facilitation tested with travellers, and selection of the most eligible options for
intervention
•Economic impact assessment of selected policy options: baseline scenario + six
scenarios for visa liberalisation and facilitation assessed and compared
•Cost-benefit analysis: assessment and comparison of the costs and benefits of the
selected options
•Concrete recommendations to the Commission on how to move forward towards
more visa facilitation for travellers from the six target markets, based on the findings of
the study and the assessment of the potential economic impact of different options.
In terms of the primary data collected specifically for this study, it includes:



6
An online survey to all Schengen consulates in the six target markets,
prompting them about various aspects related to their visa issuing practices
and the Schengen visa procedure;
A panel survey to travellers in the six targets markets, asking them
about preferences for choosing travel destinations (including the importance of
visa procedures), their experience with Schengen visa application processes,
their assessment of issues related to the current Schengen visa procedures,
and the likely impact of different options for visa liberalisation or facilitation;
A phone survey with outbound travel agents and tour operators in the
six target markets on the preferences of travellers form their countries, their
opinion of the functionality of the current Schengen visa system, and their
assessment of the likely impact of various visa facilitation scenarios on the
number of trips they would sell to the Schengen countries.
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Details on survey response rates are covered in the different chapters where the
findings of the surveys are presented.
However for the clarity of the report and understanding of the findings, it is important
to highlight certain aspects of the chosen approach and data collection, to also serve
as an “interpretation guide” for the reader.
As per the terms of reference, only the six major target markets for travel and tourism
to the Schengen area were selected for the study. This means first of all that all
findings described relate to these target markets specifically. Although the study does
not extrapolate to other markets, there is obviously a potential benefit in visa
facilitation which would not only relate to the targeted markets but to visa-travellers in
general, irrespective of country of origin.
The panel survey to travellers is a key source of data for the study and provides the
basis for calculations and estimations of the economic impact. It therefore merits
some elaboration on the representativeness of the sample of respondents and overall
soundness of the results. A panel survey is a study conducted among a population
selected based on certain pre-defined criteria related to the respondents'
characteristics.
For the panel survey with travellers, the criteria were set as: "medium to high income"
(country specific) and "have travelled abroad at least once in past five years". This
pre-screening was made to ensure a sample with interest and sufficient means to
actually travel abroad and possibly to the Schengen area. The number of respondents
per target country was set to 300. An alternative could have been to screen the
population on income only. However, since medium income levels are rather low in the
countries (except Saudi Arabia), this would most likely have led to answers from
respondents who have not travelled abroad before and may not be considering it in
the near future (due to the cost), and who know little or nothing about the Schengen
visa procedures.
From a methodological perspective, the usefulness of the responses would be
jeopardised if the respondents were unfamiliar with the visa procedures, as the
respondents would be guessing rather than informing on existing knowledge. For this
reason, the respondents who answered that they were not familiar with the Schengen
visa procedures were not asked any further questions regarding the visa procedures .
This also means that potential travellers, who may be considering a trip to the
Schengen area in the future, but were not familiar with the visa procedures at the
time of the survey, have not been captured in the survey.
1
It is not possible to estimate the representativeness of the sample to the general
population in each country. Any estimation would be highly uncertain to use as a basis
for extrapolation and calculations, so the study team instead chose to use statistics on
the number of visas issued to the Schengen area from each target market as a basis
for calculations. This choice was furthermore supported by the fact that a large portion
of the respondents had already visited the Schengen area (68 %).
This means that estimated increases in travelling are based on current statistics on
travel to the Schengen zone, rather than estimations based on the total population of
the target countries. It is considered likely that the potential for increased tourism
from the target markets could be even higher than what has been established in the
1
The respondents who were not familiar with the visa procedures answered other questions regarding travel
habits and preferences.
August 2013
7
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
current study, especially when taking into account
recent years’ rapid sociodemographic changes in the target markets (except Saudi Arabia). To compensate for
this, the forecasted growth rate in tourism from the target markets has been included
in the calculations (based on UNWTO forecasts). By doing so, the study aims to
capture the likely increase in travellers to the Schengen area as a share of all (future)
travellers from the target markets.
Another important aspect to highlight is that the estimations are based on
respondents’ own assessment of likely behaviour in a “hypothetical” situation with
different scenarios for visa facilitation (for example with questions like “Would you
travel more if…?”), which is not the same as actual behaviour based on previous
actions.
In the estimations of economic impact the study team operates with a “conservative”
and a “probable” scenario for the average spending per traveller, attempting in this
way to alleviate the inherent uncertainty in the estimations. Put simply, the
conservative scenario shows minimum gain, while the probable scenario is considered
closest to reality.
A detailed description of the methodology applied for the economic modelling follows
in sections 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5, where the economic analysis is unfolded.
1.3
Report structure
The report is divided into seven chapters:
 Chapter 2 provides some background information on the study topic – issues
and barriers identified in previous studies, relevant trends and patterns in
tourism flows, etc. – as identified in the literature review;
 Chapter 3 gives a thorough description of current practices and process in the
visa application process, as reported by the Schengen consulates in the six
target markets;
 Chapter 4 presents the surveyed travellers’ and travel agents’ views of the visa
regime, and what they perceive as main issues and problems;
 Chapter 5 presents and implements the economic impact model, outlining the
main problems to be addressed, the potential visa facilitation scenarios to
address them, and the potential economic impact of these options;
 Chapter 6 concludes on the findings of the study;
 Chapter 7 develops and discusses recommendations for modification and
simplification of the Schengen visa procedures on the basis of, especially, the
estimated potential economic impacts.
8
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
2. Background
In the following we present the main issues and trends in terms of travel to the
Schengen area from the six target countries, as identified in existing studies and
statistics scrutinized in a literature review.
2.1
Findings from the literature review
The articles and reports reviewed cover various aspects of tourism, source country
market features, the impact of visa policies on tourism in general and tourism in the
European Union, as well as methodological aspects of measuring the impact of tourism
on the economy of destination states.
The majority of the articles reviewed in the coding scheme are written or published by
international organizations such as the OECD, UNWTO, WTTC, the European Travel
Commission, and the European Tour Operators Association. One of them was
published by the German Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations and one
of them is a study published in the academic journal Tourism Economics. Some of the
reviewed articles are press releases published in various online media. A full list of
reviewed documents can be found in annex I. The articles reviewed are very recent,
most of them covering the years 2012 and 2013.
This goes to show that this is a little studied area, especially in academia, as the
majority of the documents reviewed could be categorised as “articles, position papers
or press releases” and only one as an academic peer-reviewed scientific study. As far
as the geographical coverage of the articles is concerned, the majority of them
primarily focus on source market countries or destination markets rather than
European Union/Schengen countries.
As regards data for measuring tourism in Europe/the Schengen area, the following
data sources are the most commonly used ones across the reviewed literature:
 Reports covering China as a source market of tourism. These often refer to data
by the Chinese National Tourism Association which assesses the average
spending per trip to Europe based on spending for airfare, accommodation,
entertainment, and agency services.
 The WTTC report 'Travel and Tourism Economic Impact 2012 European Union',
which provides current information on the tourism industry in Europe and the
Schengen zone.
 Other data sources for tourism in Europe, including the ETOA visa survey and
the UNWTO World Tourism Barometer.
2.1.1 Specific barriers and preferences of tourists
Visa obligations have a considerable impact on tourism worldwide, since potential
travellers may be deterred from travelling if visa procedures turn out to be too costly
or burdensome. A recent study published by the UNWTO suggests that in the year of
2012, 63 % of the world's population needed a visa to travel abroad and only 18 %
were not required to. As a general tendency, emerging economies are less strict
regarding visa requirements than advanced ones. The most 'open' world region in
terms of visa obligations is the Asian-Pacific region, having considerably loosened its
visa requirements in 2012.
Europe on the other hand is considered to be one of the most restrictive regions as
far as visa requirements are concerned. In 2012, 72 % of the world's population
2
2
Europe, in this context, of course comprises more countries than those part of the Schengen area.
August 2013
9
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
needed a visa before arrival when travelling to Europe, while 21 % did not need a
visa at all and a modest 6 % could obtain a visa upon arrival.
3
Nevertheless, current data show that in the past few years, visa requirements have
been eased to a considerable extent on a global scale. The percentage of the world's
population required to obtain a visa before arrival has decreased from 77 % in 2008
to 63 % in 2012, while the share of those being entitled to obtain a visa on arrival or
to apply for an e-visa has increased from 6 % in 2008 to 18 % in 2012. The share of
the world's population not required to obtain a visa at all has only seen a modest
increase by 1 % in the same period.
4
Seven of the reviewed articles offer best practice suggestions with regard to how visa
procedures might be facilitated. Some suggest an improved customer service including
clear information and the provision of application forms in the national language. In
order to reduce the waiting time for a visa, a decrease in the number of required
supporting documents is called for. Moreover, to facilitate access to a visa, it is
recommended to abolish the requirement to appear at the consulate in person and to
hand in original documents, as well as to introduce online visa application
procedures. A visa for several entries instead of one single-entry visa should be
introduced according to some of the studies. National states ought to consider
distinguishing between travel types, allowing a more differentiated treatment of
tourists. An example for this approach is to allow cruise passengers to disembark from
their ship without a visa.
5
6
7
8
Specific barriers deterring tourists from travelling to Europe are also mentioned in
most of the articles. In general, they criticize the very time consuming process of
applying for a visa, including the time applicants have to wait to get an appointment
for an interview at the consulate, as well as the time it takes to pick up the passport in
person. As regards the visa process itself, the lack of clear and consistent information,
the sometimes arbitrary or even openly rude treatment by consular staff and their lack
of service-mindedness are often viewed as factors putting off tourists from choosing
European Union/Schengen countries as their travel destination.
9
10
Closely connected to these specific barriers are their preferences and behaviours as
regards visa procedures and travel to Europe in general. Visitors who need to apply for
a visa generally prefer to be provided with a visa application form in their own national
language and to receive better and more consistent information by consular staff.
Longer and more user-friendly opening hours at consulates and the possibility to apply
for a visa online are also mentioned as being crucial. Many tourists are furthermore
deterred from travelling to Europe because of the vast amount of paperwork
connected to a visa application. Tourists would therefore welcome the possibility of a
multiple entry visa instead of a single longer one.
11
A study published by the ETOA in 2010 depicts some key facts about the behaviour
and preferences of tourists from emerging market economies travelling to Europe. As
far as the average length of stay is concerned, travellers from South Africa and the
3
UNWTO (2013): Visa facilitation: Stimulating economic growth and development through tourism, pp.4-6.
Ibid.: 9
5
UNWTO/WTTC 2012: The impact of Visa Facilitation on Job Creation, pp.20
6
Ostausschuss der deutschen Wirtschaft 2011: Wege zur Visa-Freiheit, p.16; UNWTO 2013: Visa
facilitation: Stimulating economic growth and development through tourism, p.5
7
ETOA 2011: A single market, p.16
8
UNWTO 2013: Visa facilitation: Stimulating economic growth and development through tourism, p.5
9
ETOA 2010: Europe open for business?, p.16
10
ETOA 2011: A hidden market, p.7; ETOA 2010: Europe open for business?, p.16
11
ETOA 2011: A hidden market, p.10
4
10
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Middle East stay the longest, the average duration of their stays amounting to ten
nights, while Chinese and Indians spend an average of eight and Russian and
Ukrainians six nights respectively. When travelling to Europe, tourists originating from
these source markets visit a considerable number of countries, ranging from four
countries visited on average by Chinese and Middle Eastern travellers to two countries
visited by Russians and Ukrainians.
The data provided by this report suggest that travellers from relevant source market
countries tend to be late-bookers. The majority of travellers originating from these
markets prefer to book a trip no more than 30 days in advance, while roughly more
than a third book their trip 1-3 months before departure. The number of travellers
from these countries booking 3-6 months or even half a year before departure is
however remote. South Africa presents the exceptional case in this respect. The
majority of South African tourists (57 %) prefer to make a firm booking at least 1-3
months or even 3-6 months (11 %) in advance, while 29 % book their trips less than
30 days before departure.
12
As most source markets are late-booking markets, this data suggests that lengthy visa
procedures may deter tourists from travelling to Europe in the first place. Moreover,
according to the ETOA study, a considerable share of potential tourist even had to
cancel their trips to Europe due to slow visa processing.
13
In general, overall satisfaction with Schengen visa processing was relatively poor, with
58 % of all respondents from source markets covered in the ETOA report claiming
they were dissatisfied or even very dissatisfied.
14
Although there are some general tendencies, the specific preferences and behaviour of
tourists may largely differ with regard to the source country they originate from. There
are some indications in the reviewed literature that Russian tourists prefer travelling
to countries they don't need a visa for or where they can easily acquire a visa without
having to endure too much bureaucratic hassle, e.g. when a visa is issued at arrival,
as in the case of Turkey.
15
Chinese tourists are very much affected by political, security and health considerations
in their choice of travel destination. Moreover, they would also prefer a more open and
welcoming approach towards Chinese tourists in Europe, including more people
capable of speaking Chinese in the tourism industry as well as a facilitation of visa
procedures for Chinese tourists.
16
Tourists originating from the Middle East prefer to book their trips quite late and they
are very big spenders in terms of shopping in the destination country. Nevertheless,
since many Arab travellers choose to travel accompanied by family members,
comparatively high visa fees are considered as a deterrent to travel to Europe from
these countries.
17
12
13
14
15
16
17
ETOA (2010): Europe open for business?, pp. 5
Ibid.: p.8
Ibid.: p.14
Ostausschuss der deutschen Wirtschaft 2011: p. 14
ETC/WTO 2011: The Chinese Outbound Travel Market, p.104; ETC 2011: Market Insights China p. 16
ETC/WTO: Middle East Outbound Travel Market, pp. 42
August 2013
11
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
2.1.2 Figures related to tourism and growth rates
According to the reports published by the World Travel and Tourism Council for the
years of 2011 and 2012, tourism is one of the world's biggest industries contributing
to income, employment and economic growth in the destination countries.
Furthermore, these reports outline macro-economic trends in general, especially
concerning GDP, Employment, Capital Investment and Visitor exports as well as new
trends regarding the changing operating environment of tourism such as the
increasing use of the internet for travel booking, the emergence of low cost means of
transportation rendering travel and leisure more affordable to an increasing share of
the world's population. Moreover, a stronger emphasis on safety and security, the
emergence of social media, the tendency towards booking shorter trips and increased
tourism from 'new' source markets such as Brazil, India and China are identified as the
most recent trends the tourism industry will face in the years to come.
18
19
Few of the articles and studies reviewed state figures on how to measure preferences
or behaviours of tourists. The WTO/ETC study on the Chinese Outbound Travel Market
conducted its own survey among Chinese tour operators about the preferences and
behaviours typical to their respective clients. Others referred to the ETOA Visa Survey
from 2010, as well as to a report about the United Arab Emirates Outbound Travel
Market Report from 2010.
Regional and/or global growth rates are rarely explicitly mentioned in the reports
reviewed so far. The WTO/ETC report estimates a general annual growth rate of
Chinese outbound tourism of about 20 % during the past 15 years, while Chinese
tourism to Europe is expected to grow by 12 % annually.
20
21
While cost seems to be a decisive factor, only few studies actually make an attempt
to assess them. One article published by the German Committee on Eastern European
Relations explicitly states that costs connected to visa requirements between Russia
and Germany alone amount to EUR 162 Million for German and Russian authorities,
tourists and enterprises.
22
23
As regards growth rates connected to visa facilitations, a study by UNWTO/WTTC on
the impact of visa facilitation on job creation in the G20 economies is of special
interest. It suggests that visa facilitations have historically led to an increase of
tourism influx by 5-25 % in the respective markets following the implementation of
facilitating measures.
24
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WTTC (2011): Travel and Tourism 2011, pp.3
Ibid.: pp.9-12
ETC/WTO 2008: Chinese Outbound Travel Market: 33
ETC 2011: Market Insights China, p.16
ETOA 2010: Europe open for business?, p. 11
Committee on Eastern European Relations (2011): pp.13
UNWTO/WTTC 2012: The Impact of visa facilitation on job creation in the G20 economies, p.4
12
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
2.1.3 Market characteristics
The ETC/WTO reports about outbound tourism in China, India, the Middle East and the
Russian Federation maintain that all these source markets are dynamic and growing at
a fast pace. Regarding increased travels to Europe, the factors contributing to this
trend are identified as the growing wealth of the population in these countries, the fact
that Europe is perceived as an attractive and prestigious destination to travel to and,
in the case of China, legislation allowing more outbound tourism.
Deterrents for more tourism to Europe are either internal or external. In the case of
China, a major deterrent is still quite restrictive legislation regulating travels abroad.
External factors include the fact that Europe is often perceived as a rather unfriendly,
not very welcoming destination in source markets such as the Middle East and China.
Moreover, it is a relatively expensive destination which is still not affordable for many
potential tourists. One major factor rendering Europe unattractive for visitors from
these source markets are the visa procedures which are very often perceived as too
cumbersome and complicated.
25
Every source market has its distinctive features outlined in the different reports. The
outbound tourism market in China is quite restricted. The so-called Approved
Destination Status (ADS) scheme regulates which countries may be visited by Chinese
group travellers. This status has been granted to most European countries in 2004.
For Chinese travellers, the most favourite past-time activity when travelling to Europe
is shopping. In India Europe is perceived as a 'dream-destination' by the emerging
middle-class. Indian tourists especially enjoy sightseeing and the cultural heritage of
Europe. The Middle East outbound tourism market is a relatively small but
increasingly more important one. However, one of the major factors deterring more
visitors from this region to travel to Europe is the perception that Arab tourists are not
welcome in Europe and that visa procedures, especially for larger families, are very
costly. A very distinctive feature of the Russian outbound travel market is the fact
that there are huge differences in the nature of tourism, depending largely on the
social strata of the tourists, ranging from the emerging Middle Class tourists to
travellers with very high income at their availability.
26
27
28
29
25
ETC/WTO (2012): The Middle East Outbound Travel Market, p.xii
ETC/WTO (2011): The Chinese Outbound Travel Market with Special Insight into the Image of Europe as a
Destination, pp.xi
27
ETC/WTO (2009): The Indian Outbound Travel Market with Special Insight into the Image of Europe as a
Destination, p.ix
28
ETC/WTO (2012): The Middle East Outbound Travel Market, pp.xi
29
ETC/WTO (2009): The Russian Outbound Travel Market, pp.xiv.
26
August 2013
13
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
2.2
Current trends and patterns
In the following section, travel to the Schengen area from the six target markets is
presented, based on the statistics made available by DG HOME on Schengen visas
applied for and issued in 2010, 2011 and 2012. The analysis is mainly descriptive and
serves to give a picture of current travel and trends for the six target countries to the
Schengen area.
30
2.2.1 Overall travel to the Schengen area from the target markets
The below table shows the development of C visas issued in the six target markets,
from 2010 to 2011, in absolute numbers. As can be seen travel is increasing from
most countries, although for India, Saudi Arabia and South Africa, increases have
been fairly small or even decreasing (South Africa).
Figure 2: Number of C-visas issued 2010-2012 (including MEVs)
The Ukraine
South Africa
Sum of C visas issued (including MEV)
2012
Saudi Arabia
Sum of C visas issued (including MEV)
2011
Russian Federation
Sum of C visas issued (including MEV)
2010
India
China
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
The Russian Federation represents the largest share of C visas issued among the
target countries as well as totally for all third countries. As share of C visas issued in
the six target market, Russia represents 63 % of all visas issued. Since 2010 the
share of visas issued to travellers from the Russian Federation has been falling
slightly, but still represents over 40 % of all C visas issued to the Schengen area in
any third country. While the absolute numbers of C visas are rising, as can be seen in
Figure 2, the relative increase is smaller than the overall growth in C visas to the
Schengen area. As share of overall C visas issued to the Schengen area, the
percentage of C visas issued in the target markets has increased in the last three
years, from 60 % in 2010 to 65 % in 2012.
30
Available
at
policy/index_en.htm
14
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/visa-
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
2.2.2 Main destinations from target countries
When looking at where travellers go from the six target markets, the main destinations overall are Finland, Italy, Germany, France,
Spain, Greece and Poland. While certain Member States see an increase in the number of C visas issued (Spain, Poland, Greece) other
Member States issued fewer C visas in 2012 than in 2010 (most notably Germany and France).
Figure 3: C-visas issued in target markets, by Member State (percentage) 2010-2012
16
14
12
10
8
Share of all C-visas issued in 2010
Share of all C-visas issued in 2011
6
Share of all C-visas issued in 2012
4
2
0
August 2013
15
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
While Finland represents the highest share of C visas issued, it is also the Member
State which issues the most visas in the Russian Federation. In fact, a full 98 % of
the Finnish C visas issued were in the Russian Federation in 2012. Likewise, Poland is
the main destination for Ukrainian travellers, where the C visas issued to Ukrainians
from Poland accounted for 94 % in 2012.
When looking at the target countries, excluding visas issued in the Russian Federation,
the picture changes somewhat. When the Russian Federation is taken out, Finland
accounts for a very small amount of visas issued, and it is France, Germany, Italy,
Poland, Spain and Switzerland which issue the most visas (a large share of Polish visas
are issued in Ukraine).
2.2.3 Visas not issued
Visas not issued correspond to when a visa applicant has not been issued a visa, for
different reasons - in other words when a visa has been refused, or when a visa
process has been abandoned or cancelled for other reasons.
As the figure shows visas not issued have declined in all target countries since the
implementation of the Visa Code in 2010, with an average not issued rate between 2
and 3 %.
Figure 4: Visas not issued in target countries 2010-2012
The Ukraine
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Not issued 2012
Not issued 2011
India
Not issued 2010
Russian Federation
China
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
The highest shares of not issued visas are found in India (6.1 % in 2012) and China
(4.2 % in 2012) while for the other countries the share is relatively small.
The statistics do not tell why a visa has not been issued. In the survey to consulates,
the respondents gave the following answers to questions regarding refusal of visa for
leisure travellers. Clearly, the most common reason for refusing a visa is uncertainty
regarding the purpose of the stay as well as lack of (sufficient) proof of will to return.
Both are also closely connected to each other, if there is uncertainty regarding the
purpose of stay, it seems likely that the will to return may also be called into question.
16
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Regarding business travellers, uncertainty regarding purpose of stay seems even more
common, with a full 66 % of consulates stating it as the most common ground for
visa refusal (see further in 3.2.4 Grounds for not issuing visas).
2.2.4 Issuance of Multiple Entry Visas
An often cited means of visa facilitation, which is already made possible in the Visa
Code, is the issuance of Multi Entry Visas (MEV). An MEV gives the traveller the
possibility to enter and exit the Schengen area freely for the duration of the visa,
thereby facilitating frequent travelling.
Overall, the issuance of MEVs has increased since 2010, in all countries and in total. In
2012, MEVs accounted for 43 % of all visas issued in the target countries, up from
36 % in 2010.
Figure 5: Issued MEVs per target country, as percentage of total
Schengen total
The Ukraine
Saudi Arabia
Share of issued MEV 2012
South Africa
Share of issued MEV 2011
Share of issued MEV 2010
India
Russian Federation
China
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
The Figure 5 above shows MEVs issued as percentage of total in the target markets. In
all markets there has been an increase since 2010; however the share differs
considerably between markets. Only 13 % of all visas issued in China in 2012 were
MEVs, while in Saudi Arabia it was 68 % in 2012. Probably the very low figure in
China is connected to the fact that many Chinese travellers are groups, and moreover
using the Approved Destination Scheme (ADS). For the other countries, the
differences are not easily explained.
The extent to which Schengen Member States issue MEVs varies greatly between the
countries. As can be seen in the following graph, some states issue over 90 % MEVs
(Finland, Luxembourg and Slovenia) while others issue below 20 % of MEVs. Most
notably, some of the MS issuing the most visas (France, Germany, Italy and Spain)
have a low level of MEV issuance. The reasons for these differences can be multiple,
for example it may be that more travellers to Finland are frequent travellers, either in
business or leisure, and border crossings are made several times during the visa
August 2013
17
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
validity. It does seem as if the Member States with land external borders have a
higher share of MEVs issued (Austria, Finland and Slovenia). On the other hand it
seems unlikely that differences in travellers’ profiles account for the large differences
in the issuance of MEVs, which is also confirmed by the MS with a high share of MEVs
without land external borders (Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal).
18
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 6: Share of MEV in percentage of total C-visas issued, per Member State
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Share of MEV 2012
Share of MEV 2011
Share of MEV 2010
30
20
10
0
August 2013
19
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
3. Current practices and issues in the implementation of
the Visa Code
The mapping of visa practices has been undertaken through desk review (based on
information provided at consulates’ websites) and a comprehensive survey to all MS
consulates in the targeted countries (China, India, The Russian Federation, Saudi
Arabia, South Africa and Ukraine).
The review has served as a guide for questions to be included in the consulates-survey
and interviews. It consists of a mapping of the visa processes as they are described by
the issuing authorities themselves. The visa process was mapped for each origin
market to provide information on key areas on the implementation of the Visa Code.
The most important procedural aspects include:







Use of External Service Providers;
Online and/or meeting requests;
Regionalised presence;
Timelines stated in information;
Accessible information (including online);
Rules for procedure;
Translations of forms and other documents.
The mapping was completed through two main sources of data. Firstly, desk research
focused on all available data online for the selected consulates and secondly, any
information gaps were followed up by the results gathered in the survey and
interviews with consulates, which also served as a validation strengthening the results
or as some measure of uncertainty in cases of direct divergence. The complete results
of the mapping are available in annex II.
3.1
Findings from the desk review
The Schengen visa documents that a person is authorised to enter the Schengen area
(a visa does not guarantee entry, as the person must still comply with the entry
requirements). Therefore the visa application procedure is an assessment of potential
security risks, the purpose of entry and the destination of the applicant. This is also
reflected in the documentary requirements.
Applicants are asked to apply for the visa at 1) the consulate or embassy of the
country of their main destination 2) OR at the consulate of the country where you will
be staying for the longest period of time 3) OR the consulate of the country which is
the first port of entry. This must be documented through proof of transport
arrangements, accommodation and travel itinerary.
As flight reservations and hotel bookings are an example of, some of the required
supporting documents each play several documentation roles at once – a flight
reservation both serves as to testify that the applicant will be arriving in the Schengen
Country which has issued the visa, but also shows that the applicant possesses a
return ticket suggesting that the applicant would return home within the validity of the
visa.
The figure below shows a flowchart over the typical visa procedure, as identified in the
review. This review has focused on steps 2-8.
20
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 7: Flowchart of typical visa application
3. Apply for an Appointment
1. Decision to travel
2. Gather information about
country and visa requirements
7. Wait
6. Submit application
(Visa code 15 working-day
deadline)
•in person
•by agent
•per telephone
•online
•in person
5. Gather necessary
documentation
8. Decision
(pick-up)
•in person
•by agent
The review looked into step 5 in more detail, which allows us to illustrate the average
information available to applicants on the consular websites by five requirements for
supporting documents and the knowledge of application forms being made available
online:






39 % of consulates require both proof of bank statement and regular income;
60 % consulates require proof of flight reservation;
51 % require either a hotel Reservation OR an invitation;
65 % of consulates require a statement from the applicant's employer;
92 % require a Medical insurance when lodging application;
98 % of consulates make the application form available online mainly in the
form of either a pdf or word document.
In other words these are the documents which a majority of applicants are informed
through consular websites that they are likely to be requested to submit with their
application. In addition to this, the review allows us to identify complex vs. simple
Schengen documentation systems by combining the different varieties of requirements
for supporting documents.
August 2013
21
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 1: Complex vs. simple procedure
Complex procedure
Unclear requirements and incomplete websites
Apply for appointment in person
Proof of means: both proof of bank statement and
regular income
Proof of flight reservation: Flight ticket submitted
with applications
Proof of accommodation: 100 % paid hotel
accommodation or
Statement from employer: A stamped and signed
original letter from employer
Travel Medical Insurance when application is lodged
Simple procedure
Clear requirements and high-information websites
Apply for appointment online or per phone
Proof of means: Credit Cards or a Schengen
guarantor
Proof of flight reservation: A reservation made with
a deposit, but no need to confirm the reservation
until the visa has been issued.
Proof of accommodation: 30 % down payment on a
hotel booking/or a deposit made/or an invitation
Statement from employer: None unless considered
necessary when the visa is issued on the condition
of a statement from the employer.
Medical Insurance when the visa is issued on the
condition that proof of a Travel medical insurance is
provided.
Regarding the issuance of visas, it is important to stress that the Travel Insurance
remains a legal obligation stated in the visa code. The purpose behind issuing
conditional visas is to lower the burden on the applicant as well as reducing the
applicants' risk of wasting money by stating that the visa will be issued when the last
document is provided e.g. a flight reservation, insurance, statement from employer
etc.
Examples of good practices made public on consular websites:
Bona fide facilitation: The Dutch Embassy in Pretoria has a bona fide facilitation in
place for applicants who have had a Schengen visa in the preceding three years,
meaning that the applicant can send the application through a third party (courier,
travel agency etc.). The Embassy reserves the right to request the applicant to appear
in person. Similar practices are seen elsewhere
The Italian Embassy in Riyadh and the Italian consulate in Jeddah have introduced a
new facilitation mechanism for Saudi businessmen and investors to facilitate trade and
investment between the two countries. Specifically, applicants who have a "declaration
of invitation" from a firm operating in Italy are exempted from submitting certain
supporting documents including proof of the objectives of the journey and "the
condition of economic-commercial operator". Similar practices are seen elsewhere
The Belgian consulate in Mumbai and The Swiss Embassy in Riyadh accept credit
cards or travellers checks as sufficient proof of sustenance, which saves the applicant
from administrative burdens.
31
31
32
32
http://www.vfs-be-in.com/processing_times.aspx
http://www.eda.admin.ch/etc/medialib/downloads/edactr/sau.Par.0011.File.tmp/KSA%20LSC%20Harmonis
d%20List%20KSA_en.pdf
22
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
3.2
Findings of the survey to Schengen consulates
The consulates-survey contributed further to a description of consular practices and
procedures of C visa issuance including with respect to the implementation of the visa
code.
3.2.1 Response rates
Table 2: Response rate per target market
Target market
Russian Federation
Ukraine
India
China
South Africa
Saudi Arabia
Total
Distributed
56
35
35
60
30
22
238
Responses
23
16
16
28
14
10
107
Response rate
41.1 %
45.7 %
45.7 %
46.7 %
46.7 %
45.5 %
45.0 %
Table 3: Response rate per Schengen MS
Member State
AT
BE
CH
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HU
IS
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
NO
PL
PT
SE
SI
SK
TOTAL
Distributed
7
10
12
11
18
8
6
14
11
11
17
12
1
14
7
3
6
4
11
10
17
10
8
4
6
238
Responses
4
5
6
3
8
8
3
4
2
6
5
6
0
7
5
2
1
0
6
10
6
3
4
2
1
107
Response rate
57.1 %
50.0 %
50.0 %
27.3 %
44.4 %
100.0 %
50.0 %
28.6 %
18.2 %
54.5 %
29.4 %
50.0 %
0.0 %
50.0 %
71.4 %
66.7 %
16.7 %
0.0 %
54.5 %
100.0 %
35.3 %
30.0 %
50.0 %
50.0 %
16.7 %
45.0 %
3.2.2 Consulates’ practices
The following section describes the visa practices of Schengen consulates in the six
target countries as expressed by the consulates themselves.
August 2013
23
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
The survey shows that the visa processing time for Schengen consulates is similar
across countries meaning that in the majority of cases a decision is taken within 7
working days of the consulate receiving an admissible application. The average time
is 5 days, which is considerably less than the legally stipulated max. 15 days.
33
Figure 8: What is the average decision making time in days from when the
application is handed in at the consulate? (N=96)
The findings illustrated by the diagram which show that the visa processing time is
fast is supported by the survey's findings on whether consulates find it is difficult or
not to meet the deadlines stipulated in the Visa Code. The Visa Code stipulates
deadlines that consulates should comply with when processing visa applications respectively the fifteen days deadline for deciding on the application and the two week
deadline for obtaining an appointment to lodge the visa application.
The survey showed that 86 % of consulates responded that neither deadline was
difficult to meet, whilst 9 % reported that they found it difficult to meet the two week
deadline for giving an appointment and 4 % found the fifteen days deadline for taking
a decision on an application difficult to meet. Only 1 % of consulates found both
deadlines hard to meet (101 consulates responded to this question). There are no firm
national trends to be noted in this question.
When asked how the consulates coped with peak periods for visa applications, the
consulates were suggested four pre-defined strategies as well as the opportunity to
state any other coping method the consulate may have put in place. These strategies
help ensure compliance with the visa code deadlines. The diagram below illustrates
the distribution of consulates on each strategy.
33
As opposed to them lodging it (this could be via an ESP, in which case the answers do not reflect the
average time).
24
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 9: How do you cope with peak periods for visa applications (holidays
etc.)? (N=99)
34
Overall, the most common approach is reallocation of staff within the consulates,
which several consulates also elaborate on in their comments to the question. In
particular, the consulates mention putting other consular activities on hold, extending
opening hours and asking staff to work overtime for the duration of the peak period.
The second most common approach is to employ extra local staff to assist with visa
applications. The third most common approach, which covers nearly one-third of
consulates surveyed, is to "not have any particular way of coping with peak periods".
The obligation to appear in person at a Schengen diplomatic mission or consulate is
covered by the general rule that an applicant must appear in person. However, the
Visa Code allows Member States to cooperate with external service providers for the
collection of applications. According to the consular survey, the delegation of lodging
the visa application in person to legal representatives and third parties (such as
courier services) is often allowed so applicants are not required to appear in person.
While the regulation allows for this derogation from the rule, it is unclear whether
Member States then instead require applicants to pick up their passport in person. The
survey question was a multiple choice question which allowed consulates to choose all
answers applicable to their procedures.
34
Since the above graph is based on a multiple choice question the percentages do not add up to 100 %
August 2013
25
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 10: When lodging an application, the applicant: (N=96)
The diagram above shows that while 61 % of the respondents indicated that
appearance of the applicant in person at the ESP or consulate is an absolute
prerequisite for a visa application, the majority of respondents reported that they have
different arrangements in place that make it possible to lodge an application via an
authorised third party. As much as 60 % of consulates accept applications submitted
by travel agents, with slightly more than 40 % accepting applications lodged by a
family member or an third person with a power of attorney. 18.8 % of the survey
consulates even have arrangements that make it possible for an application to be
submitted by a courier service.
Comparing the diagram above with the one below it appears that Schengen consulates
require applicants to appear in person when lodging their application almost three
times more often than is the case when collecting it.
Figure 11: When collecting their passport, the applicant: (N=96)
26
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
The diagram above shows that as was the case for Figure 10 the question "When
collecting their passport, the applicant:" is a multiple choice question and consulates
have therefore selected all the categories which may apply to applicants depending on
their purpose of travel and their history of Schengen visas. In summary, a majority of
consulates allow the applicant to authorise a third person, courier service or a family
member to collect their passport. This is confirmed by the comments made by
consulates in the questionnaire.
3.2.3
Supporting documents
This section describes the visa practices amongst the surveyed Schengen consulates
with regards to the additional documentation that Schengen visa applicants may be
required to provide when lodging their application. The survey focused on a number of
supporting documents which the review of consular websites indicated are most
frequently demanded in the six target countries. These documents can be placed in
three groups of documentation, which are used for proof of the applicant's:



Main destination,
Purpose of stay,
Proof of means.
All supporting documents included are listed in the Visa Code's annex II. However, not
all supporting documents listed in the Annex II were identified as frequently
demanded in the review. In addition to these supporting documents, the general
requirement of a Travel Insurance, stated in the Visa Code, has also been examined.
This section then reports the results of the language requirements for the supporting
documents as well as at the most common reasons for refusal of a Schengen visa for
the six target countries Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Ukraine, Russian Federation
(henceforth Russia), India & China.
Main destination
The main purpose of supporting documents such as flight reservations, hotel
bookings and travel itineraries is that they confirm the main goal of destination
and thus prevent visa shopping. Schengen states most often require flight
reservations or bookings. The flight reservation serves the purpose of documenting
that the visa issuing consulate corresponds to the state in which the applicant is
scheduled to arrive first. Applicants are mostly required to submit a copy of their
booking.
August 2013
27
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 12: Main destination
The diagram above summarises the practice of consulates requesting proof of a flight
reservation or ticket. As illustrated 75 % of all the surveyed consulates always
request an airline reservation, whilst 23 % request it only in special cases. When it
comes to the type of supporting documents required, 79 % of consulates request a
copy of the Airline Reservation, 17 % request an original whilst 4 % request both
documents. On the basis of this survey and taking the cross-country distribution into
account, there are no firm tendencies dependent on target country.
Conversely, only 5.6 % of surveyed consulates answer that they always request a
ticket, whilst 43.8 % never request it and 50.6 % only do so in special cases. Of
those who always request a flight ticket the original is required by 80 % of consulates
and 40 % of consulates who require a flight ticket in special cases.
Purpose of stay
Hotel bookings, business invitations, private invitations or letters from educational
institutes also confirm the main destination, while they can also document the purpose
of travel. The diagrams below illustrate the responses of the consulates which
participated in the survey when asked if they required a confirmation of a hotel
reservation. Such a document is often required of visa applicants because it affirms
the applicant's main destination and documents the purpose of travel, which for the
short-stay visas differs between several such as tourism, business, medical treatment
and studies. This type of documentation is necessary because the applicant has to
provide evidence that he/she indeed belongs under purpose of stay falling under the
c-visa applied for. Put differently, the traveller must document his/her purpose of
stay.
28
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 13: Purpose of stay
As shown in the diagram above 81.6 % of consulates always request a hotel
confirmation. 77.1 % accept a copy instead of an original. A number of consulates
also suggest that they accept or require other types of documentation. As an example,
the Estonian Embassy in Beijing, China, indicates in its response that the consulate
checks the validity of the booking online and similarly the Norwegian consulate in St.
Petersburg requests a copy from the hotel transmitted to the consulate through e-mail
or fax.
The second pillar in the diagram above illustrates that 11.2 % of consulates always
request a hotel receipt, whilst a 59.6 majority only do so in special cases and 29.2 %
never do. 65.6 % of those consulates which do will accept a copy of the receipt,
25 % request and original and a 9.4 % minority require both.
One interesting aspect of documenting the purpose of entry is that embassies often
propose to accept an invitation in lieu of a hotel booking. Generally these invitations
are certified.
The Figure 13 above indicates that that 76.8 % of the consulates always request an
invitation, followed by 22.2 % which request it in special cases.
Although the majority of all required supporting documents remain the same for the C
visa, the ones documenting the purpose do not. Business travellers are often
requested to submit a letter from their employer or an invitation from a business
operating within the Schengen area. Besides documenting purpose it the letter can
also function as a proof of employment for both leisure and business travellers.
The results from the surveys do not indicate that systematic differences exist between
third-country to third country.
With regards to the nature of the document an original often means that consulates
require the statement from the employer to be stamped and signed and define it as
original by these standards. However, the exact nature of the documents may differ.
As indicated by the diagram above by the fourth pillar, 69.9 % of consulates require
an original statement.
The diagram below shows how the request for a statement from a travel agent is
distributed across countries. 41.7 % of consulates never request such a statement,
August 2013
29
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
whilst 36.9 % only request it in special cases and 21.4 % always request it. The
majority of consulates in South Africa, Saudi Arabia, China, Ukraine and India never
request a statement from a travel agent, whilst Russia is the only country were
35.1 % of consulates responded that they always request such a statement and
41.1 % that they do so in special cases.
Figure 14: Statement from Travel Agent and Travel itinerary
With regards to the type of documentation a 53.1 % majority of consulates demands
an original copy of the statement, whilst 36.7 % request a copy and 10.2 % ask for
both original and copy.
Travel itineraries are often requested to confirm the destination of travel. The diagram
above shows that 56.5 % of consulates always require a travel itinerary, whilst
43.5 % requires them in special cases only. None of the respondents reported that
they never request travel itineraries.
The diagram above on the right illustrates that a 65.5 % majority of consulates
require a copy of an itinerary, whilst 25 % require an original and 9.5 % of
consulates report that both the original and one copy is a requisite.
15 consulates reported other types of documentation that they may require of which
13 consular comments point out that the requirement of a travel itinerary depends on
the stated purpose of travel. Box 1 below summarizes four examples given by the
consulates of other supporting documents which may be required depending on the
purpose of visit.
30
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Box 1: Other types of documentation for purpose of stay

Embassy of Estonia in St. Petersburg: Document proving the existence of
burial grounds

Embassy of the Netherlands in New Delhi: In case of visiting family or friends
a standardised legalised letter of guarantee

Embassy of Luxembourg in Beijing: A sealed copy of the business license of
the employing company

Embassy of Germany in Beijing: Proof of a family relationship to the Schengen
citizen who has invited the applicant
Medical Insurance
There are no general requirements on whether the Medical Travel Insurance should be
provided in copy/original/both. Generally, an original document should be presented.
It is a document which is requisite when submitting a visa application at all the
representations reviewed and is requested in a standard form including a photocopy of
overseas/travel medical insurance policy. Furthermore, some specify on the website
that it must cover repatriation, evacuation and a cover equivalent to EUR 30,000. The
consulates also requests applicants to carry their original insurance card for
verification when they submit their visa application.
Figure 15: Insurance certificates
August 2013
31
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Proof of financial means
According to the visa code persons applying for a Schengen visa are required to
demonstrate that he/she will be able to cover the expenses incurred during his/her
stay in Europe.
The consulates-survey focused on the seven most frequent types of proof of means as
exposed by the review of the consular websites. That is salary slips, bank statements,
credit card, traveller's checks, and certificate of property, tax revenue form, and
exchange receipt. The most often requested is a bank statement which 59.8 % of the
consulate responded that they always request.
Figure 16: Proof of means
This type of documentation is followed by salary slips which are always requested by
40 % of the consulates. The review of consular websites indicated that consulates
often request both salary slips and bank statements for the three months preceding
the visa application. 66 % of the consulates require an original copy, 11.7 % require
both a copy and an original whilst 22.3 % accept a copy of the applicants bank
statement.
Table 4 below summarises the distribution of consulates requiring the 7 types of
documentation and the proportion of consulates which required them in the form of a
copy, original or both:
Table 4: Type of documentation for proof of means
Type
of
documentation
Always
(%)
Bank statement
Salary slips
Tax
revenue
form
Credit card
Exchange receipt
32
Never
(%)
Original
(%)
Copy
(%)
Both
(%)
N
=
59.7
40
15.1
In
special
cases
(%)
40.2
56.6
56.9
0.0
3.3
27.9
66.0
53.7
26.6
22.3
35.4
27.7
11.7
11
8.5
97
90
86
12.6
1.2
56.9
36.4
27.9
62.3
32.7
34.5
51.9
51.7
15.4
13.8
79
77
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Certificate
property
Traveller's
checks
Other
of
3.4
81.6
14.9
31.8
59.1
9.1
87
2.5
48.7
48.7
36.6
43.9
17.1
78
21.4
50.0
28.6
33.3
66.7
33.3
35
14
Other consulates point out that they accept proof of land ownership, sponsorship
guarantees and pension certificates.
As we saw in the previous table and charts the applicant is required to document their
proof of means by providing the consulate with bank statements, salary slips or other
evidence of income. The purpose of this is primarily to ensure that the applicant will
be able to cover the expenses incurred during his/her stay in Europe.
Figure 17 below illustrates how there are differences between which amount of euros
the consulates assess as sufficient funds.
Figure 17: What amount of euros does the consulate assess as sufficient
funds for entering the Schengen Area? (N=97)
14 out of the 21 Schengen Member States which had consulates participating in the
survey have had consulates giving more than one response to the question illustrated
by the graph above. In other words, the divergence in the consulates' responses
expressed in the graph above is not only a question of different Member States
considering different monetary amounts sufficient per day spent in the respective
country, but the graph also covers differences within Member States across third
countries. Due to the limited size of the sample it is not possible to firmly assess
whether the amount of euros per day, which a consulate considers sufficient is
significantly dependent on the third-country.
As illustrated in Figure 18, several consulates require a proof of family relations or
spouse income for an unemployed spouse travelling to the Schengen area.
35
The sum of the percentages listed under "other" equals more than one hundred as six Schengen
Consulates have made more than one note at this question.
August 2013
33
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
As a dependent would not be able to give proof of regular income, a statement from
an employer or perhaps even a bank statement, 50.5 % of the consulates surveyed
require the dependent to supply the bank statement of their spouse, whilst 44.1 %
only require such a statement in special cases. A majority of consulates ask for an
original bank statement and 37.8 % ask for a copy. 9.8 % of the consulates require
both an original and a copy of the bank statement of the applicant. In turn, this might
render it difficult for applicants to assemble their application correctly as they may
have a harder time getting access to information on the standard procedure for these
cases.
Figure 18: Supporting documents for dependents
In addition, 47.3 % of consulates always require a marriage certificate. The
consulates located in China stick out as 69.2 % of those always require a marriage
certificate. In comparison this figure is 46.2 % for Russia, India and South Africa,
33.3 % for Ukraine and 14.2 % for Saudi Arabia.
In terms of the type of documentation required, 50 % of consulates based in China
require an original marriage certificate, whilst corresponding figure for consulates in
Russia is 42 % and the remainder of the target countries follow with consulates in
India at 36 %, consulates in South Africa at 30 %, 28 % in Saudi Arabia and 27 %
of the consulates in Ukraine requiring original copies. Overall, a 51.2 % majority of
Schengen consulates in the target countries accept copies of marriage certificates.
13 consulates point out in the survey that they have other requirements if the
dependent is a child or a relative who is a minor then a statement from the child's
parents, a testimony of a commitment to cover expenses of or, in the case of a
dependent spouse travelling alone, a letter from the spouse wherein he/she states
that he/she will cover all expenses of his/her spouse.
34
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Requirement for translation
The chart below shows that there is an almost even distribution between consulate
which request that all documents (except passport) must be translated into the
consulate's state language or English and those which allow all documents to be
submitted in the language of the host country. The remaining 27.1 % allow for some
documents to be submitted in the language of the host country.
Figure 19: What are the language requirements for supporting documents?
(N=96)
When these figures are disaggregated to country level the consulates located in Saudi
Arabia most frequently request all documents (except passport) must be translated
into the consulate's state language or English with 85 % of consulates doing so.
Schengen consulates in Russia and Ukraine allow most widely for documents to be
submitted in the host countries language with respectively only 5 % and 12.5 % of
the consulates demanding all documents (except passport) must be translated into the
consulate's state language or English. Importantly, it must be noted that the
translation of documents into English or into the consulates’ official language is not an
obligation stipulated by the Visa Code.
3.2.4
Grounds for not issuing visas
The chart below shows the most common ground for the refusal of visa across the six
target countries clearly illustrating that uncertainty regarding the applicant's purpose
of stay is the overall the most common with almost half of all the surveyed consulates
reporting it as the most frequent reason for the refusal of a visa to applicants applying
for a visa for the purpose of tourism.
August 2013
35
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 20: What is the most common ground for C-visa refusal for leisure
travellers? (N=100)
When the data above is disaggregated to shed light on possible differences between
the six target countries, the consulates located in Ukraine stand out as the uncertainty
regarding the purpose of stay is almost exclusively the reason for refusal.
Table 5: Most common ground of refusal for leisure travellers by the location
of consulate
Common
reason for
refusal
Uncertainty
regarding
purpose of
stay
Inadequate
proof
of
means
of
subsistence
Lack
of
proof
of
will
to
return
Falsified
supporting
document
Other
China
(%)
Russian
Federation
(%)
52.6
Ukraine
(%)
66.6
Saudi
Arabia
(%)
22.2
India
(%)
Total
93.75
South
Africa
(%)
57.1
61.5
45
0
22.2
5.2
0
0
23.0
7
7.4
44.4
5.2
0
28.5
7.7
32
14.8
11.1
15.8
0
14.3
0
8
14.8
0
26.3
6.2
7.1
7.7
8
During the analysis of the survey data an additional category of reason for refusal
identified was falsified supporting documents. As the question provided for an open
answer it allowed consulates to draw attention to this reason and therefore it is now
included in the above table (however due to the low number of responses,
interpretation should be done with care – it cannot considered to be a representative
figure). Another additional (but comparatively minor) reason for refusal which the
survey respondents gave concerned the issue of missing supporting documents.
36
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
The chart below illustrates which reasons are the most frequent grounds for refusals
for business travellers. Similarly to the case of leisure travellers, uncertainty regarding
the applicant's purpose of stay is the most common one, but for business travellers
this situation is more pronounced with a 66 % majority of consulates.
Figure 21: What is the most common ground for C-visa refusal for business
travellers? (N=98)
When this average across countries is disaggregated to a country level estimate the
distribution of the countries show how consulates most prominent reasons differ
depending on which third-country they are located in. The most pronounced ground
for refusal in Saudi Arabia, South Africa and India is that applicants lack proof of will
to return, whilst uncertainty regarding the purpose of stay is the most common reason
for refusal for applicants from Russia and Ukraine, but also to a lesser extent for
Chinese applicants.
August 2013
37
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 6: Common grounds for refusal of C-visa for business travellers by the
location of consulate
Common
reason for
refusal
Uncertainty
regarding
purpose of
stay
Inadequate
proof of
means of
subsistence
Lack of
proof of
will to
return
Falsified
supporting
document
Other
China
(%)
Russian
Federation
(%)
60
Ukraine
(%)
66.6
Saudi
Arabia
(%)
22.2
India
(%)
Total
93.7
South
Africa
(%)
57.1
61.5
45
0
22.2
10
0
28.5
23.0
7
7.4
44.4
10
0
0
7
32
18.5
11.1
10
0
0
0
8
7.4
0
10
6.25
14.2
7.7
8
The table above illustrates how there is both variance between countries and
depending on the purpose of travel to the Schengen area e.g. lack of proof to return
was noted as a frequent reason for refusal by consulates located in China with regard
to leisure travellers for only 7.4 %, whilst the corresponding figure from these
consulates reaches 29.6 % when the applicant's purpose of stay in Schengen States
is business.
In summary the overall most common reason for refusal of visa across travellers is
uncertainty regarding the purpose of stay, followed by lack of proof of will to return.
3.3.5 Current visa facilitation arrangements
The survey asked consulates about the facilitation measures put in place for C-visas.
The most common facilitation in place seems to be Multiple Entry Visas (when
relevant) as well as on-line booking of appointments for lodging applications, with
approximately 45 %.
Secondly almost 40 % report that trusted travellers are waived from the obligation of
lodging an application in person. Around 20 % offer online visa application, however
this figures seems a bit high taking into account the results from the mapping of
information in the consulates websites and should therefore be interpreted with care.
Only around 6 % reported that no facilitation procedures were implemented at all.
38
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 22: Has the consulate implemented any facilitation of procedures?
(N=96)
The category “Other” was followed by explanations in text. The most commonly
mentioned is different ways of defining bona fide travellers given a facilitated
procedure, either as person, through their employer or accredited travel agent. The
facilitated procedure appears to be mainly waiving the requirement to lodge in person,
fast track system and also a MEV with longer validity (mainly for business travellers).
Regarding fast track procedures a specific question was asked, showing that almost
half of the responding consulates have a fast track system in place. Most of the fast
track systems are directed at business travellers, either through formalised
agreements with companies or with more ad-hoc assessment of urgency. A few
examples exist where consulates assess on a case by case basis, irrespective of
purpose of travel, if a fast track is motivated or justified. According to answers an
extra fee is sometimes applied, however it is not clear in all cases how much and on
what basis (several consulates mention a double visa fee).
Table 7: Do you have any fast track system in place? (N=96)
Yes
No, we
don’t
have any
fast track
system
Total
Russian
Federation
55.0 %
China
Ukraine
43.8 %
Saudi
Arabia
14.3 %
50.0 %
45.0 %
50.0 %
56.3 %
20
26
16
India
53.8 %
South
Africa
35.7 %
Total
45.8 %
85.7 %
46.2 %
64.3 %
54.2 %
7
13
14
96
When asking the consulates what they see as the most common issues raised by
applicants that could be simplified and modified, almost half of the respondents see no
possibilities for simplification. In open answers the respondents state that
simplification would be risky and difficult, due to inaccurate applications, falsified
documents and other issues with the visa applications.
However, remaining responding consulates do see some room for improvements,
mainly in the list of supporting documents and the requirements to meet in person at
the consulate. Very few see a need for changing the deadlines stipulated in the Visa
August 2013
39
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Code, which is also in concurrence with earlier responses on an average visa process
of 5 days.
Figure 23: In your opinion, what common issues raised by visa applicants in
relation to the Schengen visa could be modified or simplified? (N=94)
In terms of simplifying the list of supporting documents, comments from the
consulates related to airline and hotel reservations (seen as superfluous and often
changing anyway) as well as different documents which are considered too easy to
falsify/too difficult to verify, and therefore hold little actual value (in particular this
relates to employers and bank certificates). Furthermore there are a few general
comments as to clarification on when a document is really mandatory.
3.3
Conclusions on visa practices and tentative facilitation measures
The results of the review and the survey confirm to a large extent the remarks and
issues which have been brought up by industry and tourism associations. It is clear
that the current visa practices are cumbersome and complicated – also seen from the
consulates’ perspective.
The following points deserve to be highlighted in particular:






40
Requirements for supporting documents are implemented and interpreted
differently among the consulates. In particular “proof of means” as well as
“employers certificate” appear to be problematic;
Seen from a visa applicant’s perspective it must seem strange that a letter from
your employer is required to confirm that you are “allowed” to take leave and
go on holiday (as is the case in China);
Requirements for translation differs, for example in Saudi Arabia and China, all
or most documents need to be translated, presumably officially translated at an
additional cost for the applicant;
Most fast track systems are directed only at business travellers, thereby
excluding leisure travellers from last minute deals or decisions to go to Europe;
Differences in the requirement to meet in person;
Unexplained differences in the share of C visas issued as MEVs. In some
consulates it seems almost “default” and in others very rare;
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area

The cost of ESPs means that there is no de facto harmonisation concerning the
total fee for acquiring a Schengen visa, since fees charged by ESPs differ.
Overall, the added value of the supporting documents and the visa procedure (in
particular the requirement to meet in person) can be discussed. If the intention is to
screen and ensure that only individuals with valid reasons to visit the Schengen area
are granted a visa, it appears that the current system is highly efficient (by deterring
non-valid applicants), taking into account also the low visa refusal rates. However, the
question is whether this is really due to the supporting documents and visa practice or
whether other mechanisms are at play.
As the findings of the mapping of visa practices (the desk review and the survey to
Schengen consulates) suggest, there are ample possibilities for simplifying and
facilitating access for legitimate travellers, in particular regarding purpose of stay,
proof of means and the requirement to meet in person. It should also be noted that
the future roll-out of VIS to all the world regions will pose new issues as well as
opportunities for visa facilitation. The following list of possible facilitation measures is
tentative. It should not be seen as definitive or exhaustive, and will be further
elaborated and tested during the following sections of the report. The list is based on
both the mapping of current practices and the initial literature review, and hence on
views and opinions expressed by Schengen consulates, travellers and industry.







To improve access, remove the requirement to apply to a specific Schengen
country (port of entry, duration of stay). An applicant should be able to apply
at any Schengen consulate for a trip to any Schengen country. (Some
consulates even suggest the creation of Schengen consulates, managed by the
EC Delegations);
Harmonised fast track system which enables both business and leisure
travellers to access a visa in shorter time, can be provided at a higher fee;
Simplification of supporting documents, for example focusing on a simpler set
of documents for most travellers and only requiring additional evidence when
required or justified;
Abolish the requirement to appear in person, except in cases where deemed
necessary and justified;
Promote the possibility to submit applications (including supporting documents)
in visa applicant’s language;
Promote the use of MEVs (possibly with a longer duration) to frequent
travellers (business and leisure);
Harmonise the use of ESPs.
August 2013
41
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
4. Issues experienced by travellers
This chapter presents the findings from the other two surveys conducted for this
study: the panel survey with travellers and the phone survey with travel agents from
the six target markets. In the following we outline the main issues related to acquiring
a Schengen visa, as identified by the respondents from the two surveys.
4.1
Findings from panel survey with travellers
A key information source for the study is to survey actual or potential travellers about
their experiences and expectations related to Schengen visas. In order to reach
potential travellers in each target country, a panel survey has been implemented,
asking travellers questions regarding:




Their experience with visa application processes in one or more consulates;
The impact of visa requirements on their choice of destination;
Their preferences for choosing destinations;
Assessment of likely impact of visa liberation and/or facilitation.
4.1.1
Sample screening and response rates
A panel survey is a study conducted among a population selected based on certain
pre-defined criteria related to the respondents' characteristics. For the panel survey
with travellers, these criteria were set as: "medium to high income" (country specific)
and "have travelled abroad at least once in past five years". This pre-screening was
made to ensure a sample with interest and sufficient means to actually travel abroad
and possibly to the Schengen area. The number of respondents per target country was
set to 300. The survey with travellers has a 100 % response rate (given that it is
based on a panel).
Furthermore, only those respondents who, in the survey, indicated that they were
familiar with the Schengen visa requirements were asked to continue with questions
regarding the current visa procedures. Table 8 below outlines the distribution of the
respondents on the different categories of knowledge of the Schengen visa
requirements the respondents have.
Table 8: Travel experience of the survey population
Countries
Have applied for
visa
China
Have
travelled
to
Schengen
256
Are familiar with
visa
requirements
Are not familiar
with visa
requirements
Total
10
19
20
305
India
207
17
44
41
309
Russia
255
10
21
15
301
Saudi
Arabia
South Africa
91
19
56
139
305
179
9
66
50
304
Ukraine
251
7
23
25
306
1239
72
229
290
1830
Total
42
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
One criticism of this approach could be that the survey does not address persons who
have not yet travelled abroad but could be likely to do so within the coming years.
However, from a methodological perspective, the usefulness of the responses would
be jeopardised if the respondents were unfamiliar with the visa procedures, as the
respondents would be guessing rather than informing us on existing preferences. For
this reason, the respondents who answered that they were not familiar with the
Schengen visa procedures were not asked any further questions, which is also
reflected in the number of respondents being reduced by 290 in the succeeding
questions of the questionnaire, making the total number of respondents 1540.
4.1.2
Profile of travellers from the six target markets
The survey has a fairly equal distribution between female and male respondents, the
exception being Saudi Arabia with only 15 % women responding to the survey .
36
Table 9: Gender of respondents, percentage
Country
China
India
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Ukraine
Total
Female
51
44
50
15
47
42
42
Male
49
56
50
85
53
58
58
In terms of age groups, the clearly dominant age group among travellers is between
26 and 45 years, i.e. young adults to middle age, who account for 64 % of the total
survey population. The groups travelling the least are people above 65, probably due
to age and tradition, and young people between 15 and 25 years, who presumably
have less financial independence. Overall, it can be stated that the age group of 26 to
65 years (working age) accounts for 87 % of the travels abroad.
Table 10: Age of respondents, percentage
Country
China
India
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Ukraine
Total
15-25 years
26-45 years
46-65 years
3
9
9
14
6
25
11
75
62
52
70
52
70
64
20
24
37
16
37
5
23
More than 65
years
1
5
2
0
5
0
2
Most of the travel undertaken from the target markets relate to what could be
described as leisure travel, travelling as family, friends, couple or single. Just over
10 % travel for business generally. The largest “family” markets appear to be Russia
and Ukraine, where above 50 % travel primarily as family, while Chinese and South
African travellers tend to travel equally as either a couple or family. Another
36
This is presumably due to cultural factors which means that women in general are “hard to reach” in
Saudi Arabia,
August 2013
43
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
interesting finding is the fairly high share of South Africans who travel as “singles”;
nearly 20 % while in other countries this share is much lower (fewer than 10 %).
Figure 24: Do you generally travel as…? (N=1540)
60,0
50,0
40,0
Business
Couple
30,0
Family
Friend
20,0
Single
10,0
0,0
China
India
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Ukraine
Total
Around 40 % of the respondents travelled for leisure once a year, with a further
30 % travelling more, as presented in Figure 25. Only a very small group never
travelled for leisure, around 3 %. The findings are fairly consistent across the target
markets, except for South Africa where people seem to travel considerably less abroad
for leisure. Travelling abroad for leisure more than twice per year was particularly
common in China (43 %) and Russia (44 %), highlighting the potential in these two
target markets.
Figure 25: How often do you on average travel abroad for leisure? (N=1540)
60,0
50,0
40,0
More than 4 times per year
2-4 times per year
30,0
Once a year
Once every 2 years or less
20,0
I never travel for leisure
10,0
0,0
China
India
Russia
Saudi Arabia South Africa
Ukraine
Total
As for business travellers, Figure 26 shows the frequency of business travel among the
respondents. As can be seen, around half of the respondents travel for business, albeit
with less frequency than leisure. A full 30 % never travel for business. Business travel
abroad appears to be more common in India and China, however this could be due to
the sample in the survey (high income group which may also have high level jobs),
rather than a sustained trend among the countries.
44
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 26: How often do you on average travel abroad for business?
(N=1540)
50,0
45,0
40,0
35,0
More than 4 times per year
30,0
2-4 times per year
25,0
Once a year
20,0
Once every 2 years or less
15,0
I never travel for business
10,0
5,0
0,0
China
India
Russia
Saudi Arabia South Africa
Ukraine
Total
The overview of travel patterns and characteristics from the six target markets
confirms the high market potential for increased tourism and travel to Europe. Large
shares of those who travel, do so frequently (more than once a year), have a high
disposable income, and travel often with their families, all criteria which make them an
attractive target from the tourist industry’s perspective.
4.1.3
Travellers’ preferences and behaviour
Preferences of travellers were explored by asking what factors are important when
deciding on a holiday destination.
When looking at the total set of responses across target markets, the top factors
were, in order: Safety and Security, Overall cost and Available services, with above
70 % for each. In fourth place came visa requirements, which were considered
important or very important by 63.5 % of the travellers, followed by climate at
60 %.
As can be seen below in Figure 27 the importance given to visa requirements differs
somewhat between the countries, with Indian and Chinese travellers scoring high and
the other countries somewhat lower.
August 2013
45
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 27: How important are the visa requirements when you decide on a
travel destination? (N=1540)
60,0
50,0
40,0
Very important
Important
30,0
Less important
Not important
20,0
10,0
0,0
China
India
Russia
Saudi Arabia South Africa
Ukraine
Total
While many travellers seem to plan their trips well in advance, there is a considerable
share that plans their travels with a shorter notice. Overall across the six markets,
around 55 % state that they plan two months in advance or less, as can be seen in
Figure 28.
Out of these, 15 % reported that they planned less than a month in advance,
something which in many cases exclude Europe and the Schengen area as a
destination due to the visa requirements. There are some clear differences between
the countries, for example over 60 % of South Africans plan three months in
advance, compared with only 35 % in China. Saudi Arabian travellers seem to be the
market with the shortest planning horizon, indicating that any visa facilitation with
Saudi Arabia could have a rapid impact on travel to Europe.
Figure 28: How long in advance do you generally plan your travels? (N=1830)
70,0
60,0
50,0
40,0
3 months in advance
One to two months in advance
30,0
Less than one month in advance
20,0
10,0
0,0
China
India
Russia
Saudi
Arabia
South
Africa
Ukraine
Total
The preferences of travellers confirm the notion that Europe can be an attractive
destination. On the two highest ranking criteria for choosing a destination, Safety and
46
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Services, Europe clearly fares well. Overall cost of travelling in Europe is fairly high,
but for the travelling population in the target markets, Europe is probably not the
most expensive destination (for example Australia, New Zeeland and the US can be
equally or more expensive).
The ranking of visa requirements as the fourth criteria when choosing a destination
underlines the impact visa regimes have on travellers’ choice of destination. This may
be in particular true for those deciding late on their destination, as well as those who
would like to go on several shorter trips rather than a long yearly holiday (weekend
trips, city tourism etc.). The loss of tourists in this segment is likely to be significant in
the Schengen area.
The fact that visa requirements have an influence on the travellers' preferences is also
evident from the reasons given by those travellers who responded that they are not
considering travelling to a Europe/the Schengen area within the coming five years. As
can be seen in
Figure 29, of the 111 respondents stated that they are not considering travelling to a
European (Schengen) country, 23 % specifically mentioned the visa requirements as
one of the most important reasons.
Figure 29: Reasons for not considering travelling to Europe (Schengen) in the
coming 5 years (N=111)
4.1.4
Travellers’ opinion on the Schengen visa requirements
In the survey of travellers in the six target markets, questions were asked as to
whether they perceived certain points to be a problem when applying for a Schengen
visa. An overview of the views provided by travellers on the different points is
presented below.
Over half of the respondents perceived the requirement to meet in person at the
consulate a problem. As Figure 30 shows, the responses are fairly evenly spread
among the target countries, with China and South Africa having the most respondents
who felt that the requirement to meet in person at the consulate to be a problematic
aspect of Schengen visa processing.
August 2013
47
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 30: To what degree do you perceive the requirement to meet in person
at the consulate to be a problem when applying for a Schengen visa?
(N=1540)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
China
India
High degree
Russia
Some degree
Saudi Arabia
Low degree
South Africa
Not at all
Ukraine
Total
Don't know
Similarly, over half of the travellers perceived the need to get an appointment to hand
in the visa application to be a problem, to a high or some degree, across the target
countries.
As Figure 31 shows, the required supporting documents were perceived to be a
problem by 68 % of the respondents, to a high or some degree. Only 15 % did not
perceive it as a problem at all, further underlining the difficulties with supporting
documents which has already been discussed earlier in the report. China and India
appeared to be the countries where this was considered most problematic, with
around 30 % of respondents in both countries, who perceived the supporting
documents to be problematic to a high degree.
48
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 31: To what degree do you perceive the type and nature of the
required supporting documents to be a problem when applying for a
Schengen visa? (N=1540)
45%
40%
35%
30%
High degree
Some degree
25%
Low degree
20%
Not at all
15%
Don't know
10%
5%
0%
China
India
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Ukraine
Total
Somewhat surprisingly, given the stated timelines from the consulates in their survey,
a very high proportion of the respondents among travellers (76 % in total) felt that
the time necessary to get a visa is a problem. The responses are evenly spread among
the countries and there are no particular differences, which indicate that this is a
cross-cutting issue (see Figure 32).
Figure 32: To what degree do you perceive the time necessary for receiving a
visa to be a problem when applying for a Schengen visa? (N=1540)
45%
40%
35%
30%
High degree
25%
Some degree
Low degree
20%
Not at all
15%
Don't know
10%
5%
0%
China
India
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Ukraine
Total
The uncertainty of the outcome of the application also appeared to be an issue for the
majority of the respondents, across the six target countries, although with some
variations between them (cf. Figure 33). While the issue seems to be biggest for the
Chinese travellers (67 % considered it a problem to a high or some degree), the
South African travellers are more divided with just above half of the respondents
August 2013
49
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
(53 %) who perceived this as an issue and approximately 40 % who only considered
it a problem to a low degree, or not at all.
Figure 33: To what degree do you perceive the uncertainty of outcome of
application to be a problem when applying for a Schengen visa? (N=1540)
45%
40%
35%
30%
High degree
25%
Some degree
Low degree
20%
Not at all
15%
Don't know
10%
5%
0%
China
India
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Ukraine
Total
The overall cost of the visa was also considered a problem by the majority of the
travellers (with a total of approximately 55 % who considered it an issue to some or
to a high degree), although less so when compared with the response rates on the
other points listed. As Figure 34 shows, the percentages of travellers who did not
consider this an issue at all were relatively high, compared with the answers on the
other points above, especially in Russia (31 %) and Ukraine (22 %). The figure
below also shows some variations between the countries, however, with the largest
proportions of travellers considering the cost to be an issue in South Africa (65 %)
and India (62 %).
Figure 34: To what degree do you perceive the overall cost of the visa to be a
problem when applying for a Schengen visa? (N=1540)
40%
35%
30%
High degree
25%
Some degree
20%
Low degree
Not at all
15%
Don't know
10%
5%
0%
China
50
India
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Ukraine
Total
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
The requirement to have a medical insurance was in general not perceived as a
particular problem by the travellers, with just above half of the total respondents who
found that this was only a problem to a low degree or not at all. There were, however,
relatively large differences in the perceptions when comparing between countries, as
Figure 35 shows. While the majorities of the Russians, Ukrainians and South Africans
did not consider this to be an issue, the picture was the opposite among the responses
from China, India and Saudi Arabia.
Figure 35: To what degree do you perceive the requirement to have a medical
insurance to be a problem when applying for a Schengen visa? (N=1540)
45%
40%
35%
30%
High degree
25%
Some degree
Low degree
20%
Not at all
15%
Don't know
10%
5%
0%
China
India
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Ukraine
Total
Similarly, the perceptions also varied between countries when it came to the question
of potential difficulty in understanding the visa application requirements and whether
this poses a problem. While the majority of the Chinese respondents (67 %) found
that this is a problem, to a high or to some degree, 56 % of the South Africans and
58 % of the Saudi Arabian respondents did not consider it a particular issue. This is
also reflected in the total, where the sides are nearly tied with approximately 50 % of
the respondents who did not consider this a problem at all or only to a low degree,
and 48 % who considered it a problem to some or a high degree (although with only
a minority among the latter).
August 2013
51
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 36: To what degree do you perceive difficulty in understanding the
visa application requirements to be a problem when applying for a Schengen
visa? (N=1540)
45%
40%
35%
30%
High degree
25%
Some degree
Low degree
20%
Not at all
15%
Don't know
10%
5%
0%
China
India
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Ukraine
Total
The question on the attitude of the consular staff and whether this was perceived as a
problem in the visa application process was also a dividing one. As Figure 37 shows,
51 % of the total respondents only considered this a problem to a low degree or not
at all, while 46 % found it to be a problem to some or a high degree. Again, the
Russians and Ukrainians were the ones who found this least problematic, while a
majority of the Chinese respondents (61 %) perceived it as a problem to some or to a
high degree.
Figure 37: To what degree do you perceive the attitude of the Consular staff
to be a problem when applying for a Schengen visa? (N=1540)
45%
40%
35%
30%
High degree
25%
Some degree
Low degree
20%
Not at all
15%
Don't know
10%
5%
0%
China
India
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Ukraine
Total
4.1.5 Travellers' assessments of facilitation scenarios
The survey of travellers in the six target markets also asked the respondents to assess
which scenarios could serve as facilitating measures for increased travel to Europe,
52
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
and to which degree it would influence the travellers' behaviour. The following figures
present the share of the respondents (in percentage) that stated they would travel "a
lot" more in relation to specific visa facilitation scenarios:
1. Visa free travel (Visa free),
2. Online application (Online application),
3. Shorter time to receive a visa (Shorter time),
4. Lower cost to receive a visa (Lower cost),
5. Easier access to consulate(s) (Easier access)
6. Less documentary/administrative requirements (Less documentary requirements),
7. Better information from consulate(s) (Better information),
8. Better service from Consular staff (Better service),
9. MEV rather than SEV (MEV),
10. A visa with longer validity (Longer validity),
11. Possibility for visa on arrival (On arrival).
In the figures the respondents are divided into current travellers (CT = travellers who
have visited the Schengen area at least once before) and potential first-time travellers
(FT). The latter group comprises those respondents who answered that they have not
yet travelled to the Schengen area but are familiar with the visa requirements, either
from having previously applied for a Schengen visa or from elsewhere. This distinction
is made to assess whether there are differences between the two groups and the
different facilitation scenarios’ potential to influence their travel patterns.
Table 11: Category of respondents
Countries
Current travellers
Potential first-time travellers
China
India
Russia
Saudi Arabia
256
207
255
91
29
61
31
75
South Africa
179
75
251
1239
30
301
Ukraine
Total
Figure 38: Overview of all scenarios below provides an overview of the two groups’
assessments of the 11 different visa facilitation scenarios presented to them in the
survey. As the figure shows, the two groups seem to agree on the three most
preferred scenarios: 1) 50 % of the current travellers and 38 % of the potential firsttime travellers stated that they would travel "a lot" more if there were visa free travel
to the Schengen area; 2) the issuance of multiple entry visas instead of single entry
visas, for which the numbers were 35 % for the current travellers and 28 % for the
potential first-time travellers; and 3) the possibility of receiving visas with longer
validity, for which 34 % of the current travellers and 21 % of the potential first-time
travellers said it would increase their travel to the Schengen area.
August 2013
53
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 38: Overview of all scenarios, current travellers and potential firsttime travellers (total, across countries), percentage (Current travellers (CT)
= 1239; First-time travellers (FT) = 301)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CT
FT
The most noticeable difference between the two groups is their perception of the
scenario “less documentary/administrative requirements”, which is ranked fairly low
among the current travellers, while potential first-time travellers place this as their
third or fourth most eligible scenario – ranked as equally important as visa with longer
validity.
The following figures show the two groups’ assessments of the facilitation scenarios
divided per target country. Figure 39 below illustrates that particularly in Ukraine the
scenario of visa-free travel to the Schengen area would generate an effect, as 87 %
of the potential first-time travellers from Ukraine stated that they would travel a lot
more if there were visa-free entry into the Schengen area, the amount being 73 %
for the current Ukrainian travellers.
54
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 39: Visa-free travel to the Schengen area from your country,
percentage (Current travellers (CT) = 1239; First-time travellers (FT) = 301)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
China
India
Russia
CT
Saudi
Arabia
South
Africa
Ukraine
FT
The possibility of an online visa application procedure was assessed to increase travel
by a lot by more than 40 % of both current travellers and potential first-time
travellers in all target countries but China, where the percentages were comparatively
quite low. 58 % of the current traveller respondents from India considered this
facilitation scenario a one that would make them travel a lot more to Europe, which is
a rather large difference from the Chinese respondents. However, there is also a
noticeable difference between the current Chinese travellers and the potential firsttime travellers in China in terms of whether this scenario would have an impact on
their travel preferences.
As can be seen from the subsequent tables, this seems to be a general tendency
among the respondents, where Chinese respondents (from both groups) on all
scenarios for facilitation measures rank them significantly lower than the other
nationalities in terms of the potential influence on their travel patterns. Meanwhile, the
Indians are generally the most optimistic regarding the scenarios’ potential effect on
their desire to travel to the Schengen area.
August 2013
55
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 40: Online application procedure, percentage (Current travellers (CT)
= 1239; First-time travellers (FT) = 301)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
China
India
Russia
CT
Saudi
Arabia
South
Africa
Ukraine
FT
Figure 41 shows that 27 % of the current travellers from China considered shorter
time to receive a visa a scenario that would make them travel to the Schengen area
more, the amount being 17 % for the potential first-time travellers, which is also a
considerable difference in terms of the travellers categories' assessment of the
scenario. In India 56 % of the current travellers and 51 % of the potential first-time
travellers would travel to the Schengen area more if it took a shorter time to have a
visa issued. Considering the internal differences between the traveller groups in the
other five target countries, the perceptions did not vary to a large extent in the
countries, but by a maximum of 7 %, in the case of South Africa, where 40 % of the
current travellers stated that they would travel to the Schengen area a lot more with
the realisation of this scenario, compared to 33 % of the potential first-time
travellers.
56
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 41: Shorter time to receive a visa, percentage (Current travellers (CT)
= 1239; First-time travellers (FT) = 301)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
China
India
Russia
CT
Saudi
Arabia
South
Africa
Ukraine
FT
As Figure 42 shows, the scenario of reducing the price to receive a Schengen visa was
particularly appealing (see) to potential first-time travellers from Russia and Ukraine
(42 % and 47 %, respectively, would travel more), and to both traveller groups in
India. In China, there was a noticeable difference between the percentage of the
current travellers (27 %) and the potential first-time travellers (10 %) that
considered this scenario one to increase travel to the Schengen area.
Figure 42: Lower cost to receive a visa, percentage (Current travellers (CT) =
1239; First-time travellers (FT) = 301)
Easier access to consulates was also a scenario that divided the respondents in the
target countries, as it can be seen in Figure 43. For Russia and Ukraine, the amount of
potential first-time travellers considering this a scenario which would induce them to
travel a lot more to the Schengen area exceeded the amount of current traveller
respondents sharing this assessment. The respondents expressing the highest interest
in this scenario were the current travellers from India (55 %).
August 2013
57
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 43: Easier access to consulate(s), percentage (Current travellers (CT)
= 1239; First-time travellers (FT) = 301)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
China
India
Russia
CT
Saudi
Arabia
South
Africa
Ukraine
FT
The result of the panel survey also showed significant differences between the
travellers from India and Ukraine regarding the administrative requirements related to
obtaining a Schengen visa. 56 % of the current travellers in India assessed that they
were more likely to travel more to a Schengen country if there were less
administrative requirements, against 43 % of the first-time travellers. For Ukraine,
this perception was shared by 45 % of the current travellers and 63 % of the firsttime travellers, as illustrated in
58
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 44 below. For the respondents in Russia, Saudi Arabia, China and South Africa,
this scenario was more evenly divided between the two groups of respondents,
however for China, the assessment of the scenario as a catalyst for increased travel to
the Schengen area was at 25 % for the current travellers and 21 % for the first-time
travellers, reflecting a lower level of importance of the scenario than the other target
countries.
August 2013
59
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 44: Less documentary/administrative requirements, percentage
(Current travellers (CT) = 1239; First-time travellers (FT) = 301)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
China
India
Russia
CT
Saudi
Arabia
South
Africa
Ukraine
FT
Just over half of the current travellers from India assessed that a scenario in which
better information of the visa procedure is provided by consulates would make them
want to travel a lot more to a Schengen country as opposed to only 31 % of the
potential Indian first time respondents (see Figure 45). This positive assessment was
not shared to the same degree by any of the respondent groups in four of the target
countries, but instead it was more evenly divided between the current travellers and
first-time travellers. Except for China, where, besides reflecting a larger difference of
opinion between the two respondent groups, the results also reflected a lower
importance of this scenario.
Figure 45: Better information from consulates, percentage (Current travellers
(CT) = 1239; First-time travellers (FT) = 301)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
China
India
Russia
CT
Saudi
Arabia
South
Africa
Ukraine
FT
The assessments of the respondents regarding better service from consular staff were
quite varied from country to country as well as between the respondent groups. For
the Indian current travellers, better service of the consular staff was perceived as an
important scenario to increase their travel to the Schengen area (by 50 %); this
opinion was shared by 41 % of the potential first-time travellers, as can be seen in
60
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 46. In Russia, only 22 % of the current travellers assessed this scenario as one
to make them travel a lot more to the Schengen area, compared to 35 % of the firsttime travellers. The Chinese travellers again had very differentiated opinions among
the two traveller groups, as 27 % of the current travellers assessed the scenario as a
catalyst for a lot more travel to the Schengen area, and only 10 % of the first-time
travellers shared this opinion.
Figure 46: Better service from consular staff, percentage (Current travellers
(CT) = 1239; First-time travellers (FT) = 301)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
China
India
Russia
CT
Saudi
Arabia
South
Africa
Ukraine
FT
The issuance of MEVs rather than SEVs was, to a large extent, assessed as a
facilitation measure that would potentially increase travel to the Schengen area by a
lot, as illustrated in Figure 47. This assessment is quite evenly divided between all the
respondents, also between the respondent groups, reflecting an overall interest in this
facilitation scenario.
Figure 47: Multi-Entry Visas rather than single entry visas, percentage
(Current travellers (CT) = 1239; First-time travellers (FT) = 301)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
China
India
Russia
CT
Saudi
Arabia
South
Africa
Ukraine
FT
Another facilitation scenario that would potentially increase travel to Europe from the
six target countries by a lot is the issuance of Schengen visas with longer validity. For
all target countries but China, this scenario was deemed one to increase travel to
Europe by a lot by a minimum of 40 % of all travellers. Of the different nationalities,
August 2013
61
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Indians ranked this scenario the highest percentage, as 60 % of current travellers
believed this would make them travel more (see Figure 47).
The issuance of MEVs rather than SEVs was, to a large extent, assessed as a
facilitation measure that would potentially increase travel to the Schengen area by a
lot, as illustrated in Figure 47. This assessment is quite evenly divided between all the
respondents, also between the respondent groups, reflecting an overall interest in this
facilitation scenario
Figure 48: A visa with longer validity, percentage (Current travellers (CT) =
1239; First-time travellers (FT) = 301)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
China
India
Russia
CT
Saudi
Arabia
South
Africa
Ukraine
FT
More than 60 % of the Ukrainian potential first-time travellers stated that they would
travel a lot more to Europe in a scenario with the possibility for visa on arrival. This
scenario was, to a large extent deemed one to increase travel to Europe by a lot, as
approximately 40 % or above of all traveller groups in five of the six target countries
stated that this facilitation scenario would have a positive effect on their propensity to
choose the Schengen area as a travel destination.
62
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 49: Possibility for visa on arrival, percentage (Current travellers (CT)
= 1239; First-time travellers (FT) = 301)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
China
India
Russia
CT
Saudi
Arabia
South
Africa
Ukraine
FT
In summary, the survey among travellers in the six target countries showed:

Some cross-cutting issues, which the majorities of the respondents in the
different countries perceived as problematic, namely the requirement to meet
in person at the consulate to lodge and collect a visa application, the time
necessary for receiving a visa, the type and nature of the required supporting
documents and the uncertainty of the outcome of the application. To a lesser
extent - with only a small majority and with larger differences between the
countries - the overall cost of the visa was also considered a problem.

For some of the other points listed, the perceptions among travellers were
more divided between the countries. This can perhaps be a reflection of the
respondents’ different (cultural) contexts, e.g. whether such as thing as a
medical insurance is common to have. If it is, it is probably less likely to be
perceived as a problem that it is a requirement for the visa application to have
one. Meanwhile, the differences between countries can of course also be a
reflection of different experiences with the procedures at the different
consulates. Although, considering that the travellers can potentially have been
in touch with all the different Schengen consulates in their respective countries,
it is perhaps less likely that the procedures and treatment of consulates
representing different Schengen states within one target country are more
similar than between representations of the same Schengen states in different
target countries.

Overall, all the points listed were perceived as problematic by at least some of
the travellers; however more so in some countries than in others. Among the
Chinese respondents, for instance, a majority considered the listed point to be
a problem to some or to a high degree on all questions (although “to some
degree” was the most prominent answer on all). This can perhaps also be a
reflection of either different experiences with the visa procedures or maybe
different (cultural) perceptions of what constitutes a problem.

Regarding the visa facilitation scenarios, particularly four were pointed out as
possible catalysts to make the respondents travel a lot more to Europe; namely
August 2013
63
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
issuing MEVs rather than SEVs, visa-free entry into the Schengen area, visas
with longer validity and an online application procedure.

The most noticeable difference between the two groups of current and firsttime travellers (in total, across all six markets) is that first-time travellers
considered the potential effect of less documentary requirements on their
interest in travelling to the Schengen area a lot higher than the current
travellers. First-time travellers ranked this scenario in a shared third place (on
par with visa with longer validity), while current travellers placed this option in
the bottom compared with the other scenarios and their potential effect on
their travel patterns. Otherwise, there was an overall tendency for the current
travellers to assess the potential effect of the scenarios on their interest in
travelling to the Schengen area as a lot bigger compared to the first-time
travellers. However, there are exceptions, when the results are illustrated
country-wise.

Besides the possibility of visa-free entry, the respondents generally agreed that
the scenario of receiving MEVs rather than SEVs was the most appealing. This
is interesting in light of the fact that many first-time travellers (as well as some
current second-time travellers) would probably not be eligible for receiving an
MEV (depending on how strictly the consulates interpret the provisions of the
Visa Code). Moreover, it is worth mentioning that for Russians travelling to
Finland (their main destination, according to visa statistics), there is already a
high rate of MEVs being issued, indicating that the potential for increasing the
issuance of MEVs for this particular group is probably relatively small.
A clear disadvantage of this type of survey is that we can only make qualified guesses
about the respondents’ interpretations of the questions and the reasons for their
stated answers. As seen from the figures above, Indians, for instance, were generally
much more positive in their assessments, while the Chinese were generally less
optimistic in their assessments of the different facilitation scenarios’ potential impact
on them travelling to the Schengen area. This may be a reflection of cultural
differences (e.g. that Indians are just more positive in their assessments) or it may be
a relatively realistic reflection of the scenarios’ potential effect, as their may for
instance in China be other, exogenous factors (impacting on Chines travel patterns),
that reduce the facilitation measures’ potential effect. For this reason, when these
figures are used in the economic model (see chapter 5), they are generally interpreted
with care and, in most cases, using quite conservative estimates. This will be further
elaborated below.
64
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
4.2
Findings from survey with travel agents
Besides consulates and the travellers themselves, travel agents and tour operators are
important stakeholders as regards tourism from the six target countries, as they often
assist their clients with visa applications and hence have first-hand experience in what
kind of challenges their customers face.
4.2.1
Approach to data collection and challenges
The study team aimed to conduct a phone survey among 30 travel agents and tour
operators in the six different target countries (targeting the five largest per country, in
terms of travels to Europe). They were identified through desk research and by
approaching Industry Associations in the six countries.
In the end, we received replies from 26 respondents (five Chinese, seven Indians, four
Russians, two Saudi Arabians, three South Africans, and five Ukrainians ): six of them
were willing, as originally intended, to participate in a phone interview, while the rest
preferred to submit the answers electronically, in written form. The overwhelming
majority of respondents answered the survey electronically, which left little chance for
the study team to clarify the meaning of questions if necessary and therefore it cannot
be completely assured that all respondents understood the questions correctly. The
general unwillingness to participate in a phone survey may have been caused by
language barriers, as many respondents did not seem comfortable in participating in a
phone survey conducted in English.
37
It has to be noted that a survey among 26 respondents is relatively small-scale and
that the results therefore have to be interpreted with care. Moreover, there are
considerable differences in the nature of travel agents and tour operators offering trips
to Europe. While some of them assisted around 150 000 customers in applying for a
Schengen visa in 2012, others only had thirteen applicants. Hence, the range of travel
agents and tour operators is quite broad, which renders it difficult to draw general
conclusions.
Due to the limitations outlined above, the survey among travel agents will not be
taken into account in the economic impact analysis, since its results are considered
too volatile for quantitative use.
Nevertheless, despite these drawbacks, combining the results of this survey with the
outcomes of the surveys among travellers and consulates provides a more complete
overview of the current status. The results give indications and validate the previous
findings from the desk research and the consulates- and travellers-survey and point to
similarities and differences in the various perceptions of these stakeholders.
37
See list in annex III
August 2013
65
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
4.2.2
Europe/Schengen as the most preferred destination
All of the surveyed travel agents and tour operators rank Europe/Schengen as the
most preferred destination of their customers, and an overwhelming majority of
almost 60 % of the respondents even rank it as the most preferred, leaving behind
other destinations such as the USA, which was ranked second most preferred, and
Asia, ranked third. However, it should be noted that we explicitly approached travel
agents and tour operators selling trips to Europe; hence this result may not be entirely
surprising.
Despite being the most preferred travel destination, Europe/Schengen was ranked as
the second most difficult destination to get a visa to, directly after the UK, which was
ranked hardest by 46 % of all respondents, while the Schengen area was ranked
hardest by over 30 % and the USA by roughly 15 % of them. According to this
survey, it seems to be less problematic to get a visa to Asia and Australia/New
Zealand. These regions were, with the exception of one South African travel agent, not
ranked hardest by any of the respondents, while some individual respondents ranked
them second or third hardest.
4.2.3
Visa requirements as an important decision factor
The travel agents-survey has shown that visa requirements are a very important
factor that customers consider before deciding on a specific travel destination.
When looking at the data set, over 60 % of all respondents consider visa
requirements to be very important, while over 30 % say that these are at least
important for their respective customers. Thereby, this factor ranks third when it
comes to the most important decision factors, right behind safety considerations
considered very important by almost two thirds of all respondents, and the services
available in a travel destination.
This finding largely corresponds with the findings from the survey among travellers,
which found that the most important factors are safety, overall costs, available
services, and visa requirements ranking fourth. Hence, both surveys suggest that the
decision on a travel destination is influenced by the (perceived) ease or difficulty of
receiving a visa.
Figure 50: Decision factors (in number of respondents, N=26)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
66
very important
important
not important
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
4.2.4
Most common problems identified
According to the survey among travel agents, the five most common problems faced
by travellers when applying for a Schengen visa are:





the
the
the
the
the
time necessary for receiving a visa;
type and nature of the required supporting documents;
requirement to meet in person at the consulate;
obligation to make an appointment to lodge an application;
uncertainty of the outcome of the application.
Figure 51: Most common problems (in number of respondents, N=26)
obligation to make an appointment to
lodge an application
13
attitude of Consular staff
7
difficult to understand visa requirements
7
requirement to have a medical
insurance
1
overall cost of the visa
5
uncertainty of outcome of application
9
time necessary for receiving a visa
20
type and nature of required supporting
documents
requirement to meet in person at the
Consulate
15
15
0
5
10
15
20
25
An issue mentioned by the majority of all respondents is the time necessary for
receiving a visa. Almost 77 % consider this aspect to be one of the main problems
with regard to visa applications.
42 % of all travel agents said that their clients preferred to make firm bookings less
than one month in advance, while more than half of the travel agents mentioned that
their clients prefer to book their trips one to two months in advance. Hence, the target
markets are mostly late-booking markets, which is why the time aspect is also very
important in this respect. This finding corresponds to the survey conducted among
travellers, where 76 % of all respondents perceived the time necessary to receive a
visa as a problem. Interestingly, the surveyed consulates showed that the average
time to take a decision on visa applications is only 5 days, which is less than the 15
days deadline outlined in the Visa Code, and 86 % of the consulates do not find it
difficult to meet this deadline. Hence, the perception of travellers and travel agents on
the one hand and consulates on the other hand differs to a considerable extent with
regard to the time necessary to process visa applications. Meanwhile, this is as
previously argued probably due to the fact that the visa procedure, for the applicants,
involved more and other time-consuming steps than the actual processing done by the
consulate.
August 2013
67
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 52: How long in advance do your clients generally make a firm
booking? (in number of respondents, N=26)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
3 months in advance
one to two months in
advance
less than a month in
advance
The type and nature of required supporting documents is considered problematic by
almost 60 % of all the surveyed travel agents. In general, they found that there are
too many documentary requirements and that there is too much bureaucracy involved
in applying for a Schengen visa. According to the survey among travel agents, this
aspect is especially problematic in China. Several Chinese travel agents mentioned in
their comments that Chinese tourists are very reluctant to hand in their original
documents, as required by some consulates, just as they sometimes face difficulties in
terms of supplying these documents and certificates in English. Moreover, the
requirement to issue a bank statement is perceived as problematic in a cash-based
society such as China, where most transactions are still made in cash. Many suitable
applicants may be rejected as they cannot prove a sufficient number of transactions
on their bank statements.
The finding that the type and nature of required supporting documents are perceived
as troublesome corresponds to the results of the travellers-survey, where the majority
of respondents found this aspect particularly problematic.
An equally problematic issue named by 58 % of the surveyed travel agents is the
requirement to meet in person at the consulate. It is considered a time-consuming
procedure and some of the travel agents also complain that the consulates are very
inflexible in adjusting the appointments according to the customers' schedules.
Closely connected to this point is the obligation to make an appointment to lodge an
application, a requirement which is considered a problem by half of the surveyed
travel agents. One Saudi Arabian travel agent especially mentioned the inconvenience
for travellers required to have their biometric data taken, since the applicants are, in
his experience, often required to travel to the consulate, also for subsequent visa
applications.
This perception is also reflected in the survey conducted among travellers, where half
of the respondents respectively answered that they found the two above-mentioned
aspects problematic.
68
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
As the survey among travellers has shown, the uncertainty of the outcome of the visa
process is perceived as a problem by tourists from the six target markets. This finding
is confirmed by the travel agents-survey, as more than a third of all respondents
found this aspect to be problematic for their customers.
The difficulty to understand the visa requirements and the attitude of consular staff
were mentioned as being problematic issues by 27 % of all respondents. The
travellers-survey has shown that the difficulty to understand the visa requirements
seems to be particularly onerous for Chinese travellers. This is also reflected by the
travel agents-survey, where three out of five Chinese travel agents mentioned this
aspect as being problematic for their customers. When it comes to the attitude of
consular staff, an interesting finding compared to the survey among travellers is the
fact that Chinese travellers consider this aspect as being problematic, while this was
not reflected by the travel agents-survey. None of the Chinese travel agents
mentioned this aspect as being particularly burdensome; only one interviewee
suggested a more welcoming attitude of consulate staff in the recommendations.
The least problematic issues in the travel agents' opinion are the overall costs of a visa
(perceived as a problem by around 19 % of the respondents) and the requirement to
have a medical insurance, which was only mentioned by one single travel agent.
Interestingly, this finding does not entirely confirm the findings from the survey
among travellers. 55 % of all surveyed travellers perceived the overall costs of a visa
as a problem, compared with 19 % of the travel agents. However, as far as the
requirement to have a medical insurance is concerned, travel agents and surveyed
travellers share the notion that this aspect is not the most pressing one.
4.2.5
Trips cancelled due to slow Schengen visa processing
The surveyed travel agents were furthermore asked how many of their customers had
applied for a Schengen visa in the years of 2011 and 2012 respectively, and to give an
estimation on how many of these customers had to cancel due to slow Schengen visa
processing. Disregarding those travel agents with less than 100 customers applying
for a Schengen visa and those who were not able to give any estimates, an average of
8 % of all customers in both years had to cancel because their Schengen visa was not
issued in time. This figure seems rather high, though, and is mostly due to very
"extreme" cases of cancellation rates between 20 % and 30 %. Disregarding all
cases of 20 % and above, the figure drops to around 4 % for both years. In some
countries this issue seems to be more problematic than in others. While the
cancellation rates in Ukraine are usually quite low (between 0 and 4.5 %), one Indian
travel agent mentioned a very high cancellation rate of around 30 % for both years.
However, these results have to be treated with care. Firstly, the sample size is very
small since only 17 out of the 26 surveyed travel agents were able to provide the
necessary data. Secondly, the data may not be entirely reliable since the ranges of
cancellation rates vary to a considerable degree even within the different countries,
e.g. from 30 % mentioned by one Chinese travel agent to no cancellations at all by
another Chinese agent.
Nevertheless, although the quantitative usefulness of this data may be doubted, it is
interesting to see whether those customers who had to cancel usually go somewhere
else, and if they do, which destinations they choose to travel to instead. According to
the survey among travel agents, most customers who had to cancel their trip to the
Schengen area due to visa issues decided to go somewhere else, and they chose
destinations where it is easier for them to get a visa to. Examples mentioned were
August 2013
69
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Asian countries (e.g. Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Thailand) and the Middle East (e.g. Dubai)
other destinations in Europe (e.g. Croatia, Turkey, Montenegro, Bulgaria), as well as
Australia, New Zealand and Egypt, which were also mentioned several times.
Only one Russian travel agent said that their customers did not go somewhere else,
but rather decided to postpone their trip to a later date.
4.2.6
Perceived impact of visa facilitation measures
As regards visa facilitation measures, travel agents were asked about how many more
trips they would sell to Europe given that certain facilitation measures were in place.
The surveyed travel agents consider the following measures to have the biggest
positive impact on the number of trips they would sell to Europe:




Visa on arrival,
Visa-free travel,
Multiple-entry visa,
Visa with longer validity.
Figure 53: Potential impact of visa facilitation measures (in number of
respondents, N=26)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
up to 20%
2
21%-50% more
0
over 50% more
no change
60 % of the surveyed travel agents expected that the possibility of visa on arrival, a
facilitation measure that comes close to visa-free travel, would increase the number of
trips sold by over 50 % Interestingly, one Ukrainian travel agent mentioned during
the interview that their customers would rather not make use of this possibility, out of
fear of being rejected at the airport and having to travel back home.
Almost two thirds of the respondents assumed that they would sell between 21 %
and 50 % more trips to Europe if there was visa free-travel from their respective
70
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
countries to the Schengen area. The remaining ones, with the exception of one
Ukrainian travel agent saying that they would sell up to 20 % more trips, estimated
that the number of sold trips would increase by 50 % and more. Hence, all surveyed
travel agents expected to increase the number of trips in this case, thus confirming
the findings from the survey among travellers.
It may appear as a paradox that the surveyed travel agents expect the number of
trips sold to increase more in the case of visa on arrival than in the case of visa-free
travel.
In the travel agents' assessment, visa with longer validity and multiply-entry visa
would also sell more trips to Europe. One fourth of all respondents expected their
number of trips sold to increase by up to 20 % or between 21 and 50 % respectively
if their customers had the possibility of applying for visa with longer validity. The
remaining respondents, with the exception of two travel agents saying that they
expected no change at all, would see a likely increase of sold trips by 50 % and more.
As far as multiple-entry visas are concerned, almost 44 %, of all respondents
assumed that they would sell more than 50 % more trips if their customers were
given this possibility, while 16 % of the travel agents thought that the number of
trips sold would increase by 21-50 % and almost one fourth of all respondents said
that this facilitation measure would increase the sold trips by up to 20 %. Four
surveyed travel agents mentioned that there would not be a change at all.
It is interesting that the possibility for a visa with longer validity and multiple-entry
visas appeared to be especially important in the Indian market, where six out of seven
surveyed Indian travel agents said that their number of trips would increase by 50 %
and more in the case of visa with longer validity; and even all of them said that the
number of trips sold would increase by the same percentage if their customers were
granted multiple-entry visas.
The finding that visa on arrival, visa-free travel, the possibility of multiple-entry visa
and visa with longer validity would increase the number of trips sold to Europe
confirms the findings from the survey among travellers, where the majority of
respondents stated that they would travel more or even a lot more to Europe if one of
these four measures were in place.
As outlined above, the time necessary for receiving a visa and the type and nature of
supporting documents are considered to be most problematic for the travel agents'
customers. Almost 40 % of all respondents thought that they would sell up to 20 %
more trips to Europe if the time to process a visa were shorter. The same number of
travel agents expected an increase by 21-50 % and three travel agents even
assumed that the number of sold trips would increase by over 50 %. It is noteworthy
again in this context that this factor is considered particularly relevant for the Indian
market, as six out of seven surveyed Indian travel agents expected their number of
sold trips to increase by at least over 20 %. This finding is largely in line with the
findings from the travellers-survey, as most travellers responded that they would
travel a lot more to Europe if the visa processing time was shorter.
42 % of all surveyed travel agents assume that less documentary requirements would
increase the trips sold to Europe by 21-50 % and almost a third even expected them
to increase by over 50 %, which shows that this issue is one of the most pressing
ones according to the surveyed travel agents.
Considering that many of them perceived the requirement to meet in person at the
consulate and the obligation to make an appointment to lodge an application as the
August 2013
71
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
most common problems for their customers, a relatively large share of almost one
third of the respondents said that the possibility of lodging an application online would
not increase the number of trips sold to Europe, although the findings from the
travellers-survey suggest that the majority of surveyed travellers from most countries
would travel a lot more to Europe if this measure was in place. This might, however,
be due to the fact that in this case, more travellers, and especially younger ones,
would book their trips and apply for a Schengen visa online instead of booking through
a travel agency assisting them in visa-related issues, as mentioned by one Ukrainian
travel agent during the phone interview. Hence, the perception of travellers and travel
agents may differ somewhat in this respect.
With regard to what the consulates themselves could improve, we specifically asked
the travel agents about how many more trips they think they would sell if there was
better information, better service and easier access to the consulates.
Concerning better information, almost 40 % of the surveyed travel agents expected
the number of trips to rise by up to 20 % and a bit less than one third did not expect
changes. However, more than 20 % of the respondents expected the number of trips
to increase by over 50 %, pointing to that this aspect is quite problematic in some
cases. It is interesting that this is the case for four out of seven Indian travel agents,
who expect the number of trips to increase by over 50 % if better information was
provided by the consulates.
As regards better service, almost 30 % of all respondents answered they would sell
up to 20 % or 21-50 % more trips if better service was provided by the consulate
staff.
According to almost 30 % of the respondents, easier access to consulates would
increase the number of trips to Europe by 50 % and more. It is noteworthy that this
issue seems to be particularly important for Indian travel agents, as five out of seven
expect the number of trips to rise by 50 % and more and the rest by at least 20 %.
However, one fourth of all surveyed travel agents operating in four different countries
do not expect any changes in their number of trips sold, indicating that this issue
seems to be more problematic in some countries than in others.
Interestingly, visa fees do not seem to be one of the main problems for travel agents'
customers, as almost half of the respondents do not expect the number of trips to
increase if the visa fees were lower, while seven travel agents expected an increase by
21-50 % and four expected an increase of up to 20 %.
4.2.7
Summary of the findings
In summary, the survey among travel agents has shown the following:

72
The travel agents-survey has to a certain extent confirmed the findings from
the travellers-survey with regard to what kind of issues are perceived as
problematic by travellers. According to these two surveys, the time necessary
for receiving a visa is one of the most common problems that travellers face
when applying for a Schengen visa. This finding somewhat conflicts with the
findings from the survey among consulates, where 86 % of the surveyed
consulates responded that they do not find the 15-day-deadline for deciding on
a visa difficult to meet. This indicates that the time issue is probably just as
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
much (if not more) related to the other steps involved for the applicant in the
visa application process as to the actual consulate processing time.

Other common problems mentioned by both the travellers themselves and the
travel agents are the type and nature of required supporting documents, the
requirement to meet in person at the consulate and the obligation to make an
appointment to lodge an application.

Although the survey among travel agents largely confirmed most findings from
the travellers-survey, there are also some differences in their respective
perceptions. The surveyed travel agents do generally not perceive visa fees as
particularly problematic, while travellers do consider this aspect burdensome.
Moreover, as outlined above, their respective assessments of how much more
they would travel to Schengen countries and accordingly how many more trips
they would sell if online application procedures were in place differ
considerably.
August 2013
73
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
5. Economic impact model
The analysis, in the previous chapters, of the findings from all the different data
sources used in this study has served to fulfil the first part of the study’s objective,
namely to “evaluate the current implementation of the common visa provisions in the
Schengen area from the tourism industry/travellers' viewpoint”. The purpose of this
chapter is to meet the second half of the overall study objective that is to “develop a
methodology to assess the economic impact of visa facilitation”.
Following the approach and structure of an impact assessment (albeit without the
ambition to develop a full-scale IA), the chapter begins with (1) a summary and crossanalysis of the issues related to the current implementation of the Schengen visa
provisions, as outlined in the previous chapters, concluding on the main problems
identified and verified by the different sources. This is followed by (2) an outline and
analysis of the different potential scenarios for visa facilitation, which have been
tested with respondents to the travellers- and travel agents-surveys. Then (3) a net
list of preferred options is further analysed and tested, in terms of their potential
economic impact on the Schengen tourism industry; this is done by developing – and
implementing – a methodology for assessing the loss of tourist flows due to the
current Schengen visa practices, and the different visa facilitation options’ potential for
regaining some of the tourists “lost” (i.e. the economic impact assessment and the
cost-benefit analysis).
5.1
Problem analysis: verified problem
The surveys among travellers and travel agents took their starting points in the
findings of the literature review by asking travellers and agents from the selected
target countries about their perception of the importance of some of the issues related
to Schengen visa procedures, identified from previous studies. However, only some of
the issues highlighted in the existing literature were verified by the travellers and
travel agents in our surveys.
The following points were agreed by a majority of all respondents to the travellerssurvey, across the six target countries, to be the most problematic, thereby
confirming the findings from the literature review:




the time necessary for receiving a visa,
the type and nature of the required supporting documents,
the requirement to meet in person at the consulate to lodge and/or collect a
visa application, and
(to a lesser extent) the uncertainty of the outcome of the application.
These points were furthermore confirmed by travel agents as the main issues
experienced by their clients in applying for Schengen visas.
As mentioned earlier, the time issue, from the applicants’ perspective, refers to the
entire process and the time spent on all the steps towards acquiring a visa. As such, it
does not only concern the actual processing time, which in the survey with consulates
was established to be, on average, relatively fast and shorter than the time stipulated
in the Visa Code (approximately 5 days on average).
According to interviews with travel agents in the target countries, one of the main
issues mentioned by their clients in terms of acquiring Schengen visas is the time it
takes to get an appointment at the consulates/embassies for interviews, lodging and
74
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
collecting the application, etc., and the time spent waiting in line at the consulates in
connection with these meetings. As such, the time issue also incorporates point three
on the list of verified problems, above, namely “the requirement to meet in person at
the consulate to lodge and collect a visa application”.
Although still a relatively small share, 9 % of the surveyed consulates did state that
they found it difficult to meet the two-week-deadline for an appointment, while the
corresponding number for the actual application processing time was only 4 %. The
survey did not ask about the average time it takes to get an appointment, however, in
the “worst case” scenario, in which the applicant has to wait two weeks for an
appointment, the time spent on getting an appointment and the actual processing of
the application by the consulate taken together may take between 19 (calculating with
the average processing time of five days, as stipulated by consulates) and 29 days
(calculating with the maximum of 15 days for the processing, as stipulated by the Visa
Code). Considering that, according to the findings of our literature review, the
majority of travellers from the relevant source markets tend to be late-bookers and
prefer to book a trip no more than 30 days in advance, a prospective 19-29 days of
waiting for a visa is a considerable amount of time. This is of course the “worst case”
scenario of two weeks waiting time to get an appointment, which is probably not a
reflection of the situation at the majority of Schengen consulates. Meanwhile, this
calculation does not account for the time the traveller spends on collecting all the
required supporting documents. Moreover, as the desk review in our mapping of the
practices in the implementation of the Visa Code showed, most of the consular
websites do not inform potential applicants of the maximum two-weeks waiting time
to get an appointment.
38
As outlined above, findings from all the different data collected and assessed in
connection with this study support the notion that the time factor – and more
specifically the time required for preparing and collecting the required supporting
documents (and in some instances having them translated) getting an appointment,
lodging and collecting an application at the consulates – is one of the most important
issues to address, with regard to facilitating Schengen visa processing and thereby
potentially increasing the number of tourists from the six target markets.
When asking the surveyed consulates “what common issues raised by visa applicants
in relation to the Schengen visa could be modified or simplified?”, 25.5 % answered
that the requirement to lodge an application in person could be modified or simplified,
thereby also supporting the conclusion that this is an important element to look at in
considering further visa facilitation initiatives. Ranked second was the list of
supporting documents, with 22.3 % of the consulates pointing at this issue as
something that could be modified or simplified. This shows that the consulates in
general are aware of the most pressing issues relating to visa processing from the
travellers’ perspective, as this reflects exactly two of the main points in the list above,
identified in the literature review and verified by the travellers and travel agentssurveys. Moreover, a small majority of the surveyed consulates also considered that
these are aspects of the visa issuing process that could potentially be altered.
From the specific comments provided by the consulates in the open questions, it can
be deduced that the practices could particularly be changed with regards to the
requirements related to airline and hotel reservations and employer and bank
certificates. The former were considered superfluous and the latter were considered
too easy to falsify.
38
Only four out of the 78 consular websites surveyed included information on the two-weeks maximum wait
or on the expected waiting time to get an appointment (see annex II).
August 2013
75
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
The fact that hotel and airline reservations were pointed out as superfluous (partially
because they are often bound to change) is particularly interesting, given that the
requirement to have a firm booking has also been pointed out as problematic.
Interviewed travel agents, for instance, have indicated that their customers find it
particularly burdensome in the visa process that some consulates require confirmed
and sometimes even proof of pre-paid bookings with hotels and airlines. This was
confirmed by the consulates-survey, which showed that, while the majority of
consulates usually only require proof of a reservation with hotel and airline, some may
require – always (a minority) or in special cases – that the plane tickets and hotel are
pre-paid. As travel agents have pointed out, travellers find such requirements
problematic, as they do not wish to potentially waste money on booking and paying
for a trip for which they are not certain to receive a visa.
As such, the issue of supporting documents is closely related to the fourth point on the
list above, the uncertainty of the outcome of the application, which was not ranked as
highly as the first three but still considered important by a majority of the surveyed
travellers. The uncertainty of the outcome is, at first glance, a difficult factor to deal
with, as it is to some extent an inherent part of the visa processing, and to some
extent also relies on the applicants themselves and their ability to live up to the
requirements. But the qualification of the statement provided by the travel agents
(that the problem mainly lies in the pre-payments and firm bookings, considering the
uncertainty of the outcome) indicates that this issue can potentially be addressed by
modifying the requirements for airline and hotel bookings.
What this problem analysis demonstrates is that the four main issues listed above can
be condensed to two main points to be addressed by potential new visa facilitation
initiatives:
1. Reducing the time related to acquiring a visa by modifying the requirement to
lodge an application in person at the consulate (especially the time related to
getting an appointment);
2. Modifying the requirements for supporting documents (including requirements
for official translations), especially those related to hotel and airline bookings
(considered burdensome and superfluous) and perhaps also those related to
employer and bank statements (considered too easy to falsify/difficult to
verify).
5.2
Selection of scenarios
There are several potential ways of addressing the issues outlined in the above
problem analysis through new visa facilitation initiatives. In the following, we outline
some of the potential scenarios that have been tested with the surveyed travellers and
travel agents, in terms of their likelihood to increase the number of travellers to the
Schengen area from the six target countries. From the gross list the most relevant
options will be selected and, in the subsequent sections, be further assessed and
compared in terms of their potential economic impact.
In evaluating and selecting possible facilitation scenarios, it is important to consider
the security aspect. The visa process is an important filtering process to help states
identify potential high-risk visa applicants and welcome low-risk, high value travellers
to their territory. Potential measures for further facilitation, thus, must fulfil the dual
purpose of making access to a Schengen visa easier for the eligible travellers, while
still enabling the identification of the high-risk applicants. In terms of the identified
76
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
issues to be addressed, it is hence important that especially any proposed changes to
the documentary requirements do not jeopardize the security aspect of the visa
processing. Meanwhile, the quite low number of visa refusals to applicants from the
target countries can be seen as an indication that the number of high-risk applicants
from these countries is quite small.
Additionally, the scenario-selection also takes as its starting point that the developed
scenarios should ideally propose facilitation measures targeted at all travellers
applying for short-stay Schengen visas and not only specific groups, such as frequent
travellers for which several countries and consulates already have different forms of
special facilitation measures, as outlined in the findings from the consulates-survey
(see section 0).
In terms of selecting the scenarios with the largest potential economic impact for the
short list, the travellers-survey provides us with the best indicator. The gross list of
potential facilitation measures (including one liberalisation measure, i.e. visa-free
entry) is outlined in the selection grid below, which also provides an overview of how
they compare to and meet the relevant selection criteria (listed in the left-hand
column).
August 2013
77
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 12: Scenarios for modification of the visa processing - selection grid
1. Visa-free
entry
Impact on  Travellers:
stakeholde
benefit
rs39
 Consulates
: benefit
 Tourism:
benefit
 Borders:
cost
Legal
Yes40
changes
required
Impact on High
security46
Est. effect High
on travel47
2. Online
application
3. Shorter
time
4. Lower
costs
5. Easier
6. Less doc. 7. Better
8. Better
access to
requiremen information service
consulate(s ts
)
9. MEVs
rather than
SEVs
10. Longer
validity for
visas
11. Visa on
arrival
 Travellers:
benefit
 Consulates
: cost
 Tourism:
benefit
 Borders:
none
Yes/no41
 Travellers:
benefit
 Consulates
: cost
 Tourism:
benefit
 Borders:
none
Yes/no42
 Travellers:
benefit
 Consulates
: cost
 Tourism:
benefit
 Borders:
none
Yes/no43
 Travellers:
benefit
 Consulates
: cost
 Tourism:
benefit
 Borders:
none
No
 Travellers:
benefit
 Consulates
: benefit
 Tourism:
benefit
 Borders:
none
Yes/No44
 Travellers:
benefit
 Consulates
: cost
 Tourism:
benefit
 Borders:
none
No
 Travellers:
benefit
 Consulates
: cost
 Tourism:
benefit
 Borders:
none
No
 Travellers:
benefit
 Consulates
: benefit
 Tourism:
benefit
 Borders:
none
Yes/no45
 Travellers:
benefit
 Consulates
: none
 Tourism:
benefit
 Borders:
none
Yes/no
 Travellers:
benefit
 Consulates
: benefit
 Tourism:
benefit
 Borders:
cost
Yes
Low
Low
Low
Low
Medium/low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
Small
High
High
High
39
Stakeholders are set to either “benefit” (e.g. travellers benefitting from simplified visa processing and the European tourism industry benefitting from
expected increase in number of tourists, in all scenarios), be subject to increased “cost” (smaller or larger – to be elaborated below) or not be influenced by
the change (marked “none”).
40
Legislative changes required to Council Regulation No 539/2011, to include the six target countries on the list of countries whose nationals are exempt
from the requirement to hold a visa when crossing the Schengen external borders.
41
Depends on the scope of the measure. To live up to the provisions of the current Visa Code, the applicant (unless fulfilling the exception provided for in
article 10(2)) would still be required to, at some point meet in person at the Consulate (cf. article 10(1) of the Visa Code) or at the premises of an external
service provider (cf. Visa Code article 43(6)).
42
Depending on the scope of the measure. If it would imply changing the time limits set in the Visa Code for scheduling an appointment and making a
decision on an application, it would require legislative changes. But the time invested by the applicant may also be reduced through other means, not
requiring legislative changes.
43
Depending on the scope of the measure. A change in the fixed cost for a Schengen visa, as stipulated by the Visa Code, would require legislative changes.
But costs may be reduced through other means, e.g. by not transferring the cost of using ESPs to the applicant by adding a fee, as some consulates do, or
by not requesting official translations of documents, as some consulates do, which might be subject to additional costs.
44
Depending on the scope of the measure. Changes may be made to the requirements for supporting documents, without any changes to the Visa Code, as
long as the applicant still provides proof of the points listed in article 14(1) of the Visa Code.
45
Depending on the scope of the measure. The promotion of more extensive use of MEVs among consulates will not require legislative changes, as long as
the applicants to whom they are issued live up to the criteria listed in article 24(2) of the Visa Code.
46
The considerations behind the rankings as either “high”, “medium” or “low” are elaborated for each option in the table below.
47
Based on the answers provided in the survey to travellers and the number of respondents who, when asked about the different concrete measures, said
that it would induce them to travel to Schengen “a lot more”. Definition: high : =/>45% of total respondents; medium: >30, <45%; small: =/<30%.
78
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
While the table above provides a brief overview of the 11 options on the chosen
selection criteria, for comparison purposes, a short elaboration on each of the options,
as well as the argumentation behind the classification on the different criteria, is
provided in the table below, in which we also summarise whether the scenarios fall
within the objective of this study (i.e. whether they have the potential to significantly
increase travel to the Schengen area from the target countries, not only for
select/specific groups of travellers). Included in the list in the table below is also the
“do nothing” or status quo-scenario, which will serve as the baseline for assessing the
potential impact of the other scenarios.
Table 13: Description and assessment of scenarios
Scenarios
0. Status quo
Description and assessment
The “do nothing”-approach or, in fact, the present situation, where the
time-consuming
process
for
booking
an
appointment,
lodging/collecting a visa and the requirements for supporting
documents deter some potential tourists from ever applying for a
Schengen visa and result in others giving up along the way, resulting
in the European tourism industry losing out on a number visitors and
potential income each year. If the status quo is upheld, the issues
related to the visa processing will remain and there will be no
significant change for the stakeholders .
Visa-free entry is regarded as the other extreme (the opposite of the
“do nothing”-scenario), representing the maximum possible impact to
be achieved. Total liberalisation of the visa requirements for tourists
from the six target countries would not only reduce the likelihood of
problems or obstacles occurring in the visa-processing but remove
them all together. Thus, waiving the visa requirements completely
would make it possible to attract not only those tourists who are
already travelling to the Schengen area but find the visa processing
troublesome, possibly reducing their travel frequency – it also has the
potential to attract those who are currently deterred from travelling to
the Schengen area due to the visa requirements.
48
1. Visa-free
entry
Visa-free entry is not a viable option for the six target countries at
present. As indicated in the selection grid above, total visa
liberalisation for the six target countries would imply a trade off in
terms of security. Especially some of the six selected countries are still
to a high extent source markets for illegal labour immigration to
Europe, and visa-free entry would take away an important means for
the Schengen countries in minimizing illegal immigration.
However, visa-free entry is included in the assessment of the
economic impact as the scenario that could lead to an increase in
number of tourists corresponding to the number of tourists currently
lost, due to the visa processing. In other words, it serves as a
comparison basis for assessing the maximum potential impact of the
visa facilitation options.
Expected effects on stakeholders:
 Travellers from target countries: more inclined to travel to
48
In calculating the baseline, a “natural” growth in the number of tourists from the six countries to
Schengen due to other, exogenous factors than visa facilitation (i.e. the economic development in the target
countries as well as the Schengen area) shall be taken into account. This will be further developed and
factored in in the assessment of the economic impact in the subsequent section.
August 2013
79
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Schengen  increase in number of tourists,
Schengen tourism industry: increased income from increased
number of tourists,
 Schengen consulates: decreased income from visas; but also
decreased costs for processing visas in target countries,
 Border control personnel: increased workload as the filtering
process represented by the visa procedure is now transferred
to the border crossing point.
A scenario of visa facilitation through the implementation of online
application systems could take different forms. In its extreme, and
possibly most effective, version, applicants would be allowed to fill in
and submit everything related to the visa application via the online
system, thus waiving the requirement to meet in person at the
consulate (or with an external service provider). This would thus
require changes to the Visa Code, at least if it is to apply to all
travellers and not only frequent/known ones.

2. Online
application
procedure
A “softer” version, manageable within the existing legal framework,
and already applied by some Schengen consulates, would be to allow
for filling in the application form and submitting supporting documents
through an online system, but first-time applicants would still be
required to meet in person to formally lodge the application (and, in
the countries where the VIS has been rolled out or will be in the near
future, for the collection of biometric data). Meanwhile, for frequent
travellers and persons who have travelled on a Schengen visa before,
etc. , the requirement to meet in person could be waived and the
application submitted via the online system.
49
Both versions of the scenario are assessed as having no or only low
potential security policy implications.
3. Shorter
time to
receive a visa
Expected effects on stakeholders:
 Travellers from target countries: more inclined to travel to
Schengen  increase in number of tourists,
 Schengen tourism industry: increased income from increased
number of tourists,
 Schengen consulates: possibly some investment costs related
to implementing the system; but also potential savings on
personnel costs/man-hours for accepting visa applications by
hand/post and subsequently transferring them manually in
electronic systems,
 Border control personnel: no effect.
Several different steps and facilitation measures could be taken to
reduce the overall amount of time involved for applicants to prepare,
submit and collect a visa application. Meanwhile, these are for the
most part covered by the other scenarios presented. Hence, in this
scenario, it is taken to mean a reduction of the processing time by the
consulates.
Although this scenario to some extent responds to one of the main
problems identified (i.e. the time-consuming process of applying for a
visa), it was not among those facilitation measures that were ranked
49
As outlined in section 3.3.2. of the Handbook for the processing of visa applications and the modification
of issued visas.
80
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
4. Lower cost
to receive a
visa
5. Easier
access to
consulate(s)
highest by the surveyed travellers (cf. Table 12 above). On this basis,
this scenario will not be included in the preferred ones to be carried on
to the economic impact assessment.
To lower the costs of the visa applicant related to the visa process,
several steps could be taken:
 To reduce the visa fee. This would require legal changes to the
Visa Code, which stipulates the Schengen visa fees.
 Reducing other potential costs for the applicant, such as
potential costs for translation of supporting documents to be
submitted with the application; costs related to travelling to a
Schengen consulate to lodge an application (by wider use of
geographically dispersed external service providers); and costs
related to the use of ESPs (by not allowing to charge an
additional fee, as practiced by some ESPs in some countries).
It was clear from the data collected for this study that the costs
related to the visa processing, in most of the target countries, was not
considered the most important issue, and the option was ranked
among those with the lowest potential impact based on the survey
responses. Hence, this scenario was de-selected for the further
economic analysis.
Providing easier access to consulates could either mean making it
easier to get an appointment for lodging an application by extending
the service hours of consulates (i.e. increasing the number of manhours allocated for the visa procedure). Or it could mean making the
consulates more physically accessible by increasing the number of
Schengen consulates and making them more geographically dispersed
– alternatively by increasing the use of geographically dispersed ESPs.
In this scenario, easier access to consulates is taken to mean the
latter. The use of ESPs is allowed for by the Visa Code and is already
used by several Schengen countries (e.g. in Russia with its large
physical distances). An option for the Commission could be to
encourage a wider and perhaps more coordinated use.
6. Less
documentary
/administrati
ve
requirements
Given that this scenario was not ranked among the options with the
highest potential impact, it is de-selected from the further economic
analysis.
This scenario would entail a modification of the number and nature of
the supporting documents required by consulates from visa
applicants. The Visa Code allows for a certain amount of flexibility
regarding the specific documents required, as long as they fulfil the
purpose of documenting certain aspects concerning the applicant’s
travel, as specified in Article 14 of the Visa Code. It could, for
instance, involve a modification of the requirements currently applied
by many consulates to submit airline and hotel reservations and
employer and bank certificates. Among the surveyed consulates,
many found that the former were superfluous and the latter were too
easy to falsify.
It could be argued that modifying the documentary requirements
could potentially have security implications, if the simplifications risk
jeopardizing the consulates’ ability to verify e.g. purpose of stay and,
especially, willingness to return. However, seeing as consulates also
August 2013
81
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
saw the documentation currently required for this purpose as
problematic, it can be counter-argued that the risk related to
modifications is low.
This study has also shown that some consulates require official
translations of supporting documents, putting an extra burden (at
least in terms of time and potentially also costs) on the applicant. As
part of this facilitation measure, consulates could be encouraged to
change this practice.
In terms of potential effect on number of travellers, this scenario was
ranked “medium” (cf. Table 12 above). Even so, it is considered
relevant to carry on to the economic analysis, based on the facts that:
i) it was close to being ranked “high” in terms of effect; ii) it most
directly addresses one of the main verified problems identified in the
study; iii) consulates also indicate this as a relevant/important
potential facilitation measure.
7. Better
information
from
consulates
8. Better
service from
consulates
9. Multi-entry
visas rather
than single-
82
Expected effects on stakeholders:
 Travellers from target countries: more inclined to travel to
Schengen  increase in number of tourists,
 Schengen tourism industry: increased income from increased
number of tourists,
 Schengen consulates: potential for efficiency gain with fewer
and more pertinent (/verifiable) documents to assess,
 Border control personnel: no effect.
This scenario would entail an improvement in the information on the
visa process provided by the consulates to applicants, e.g. via the
consulates’ websites. The purpose would be to make the stipulated
deadlines and requirements for the visa processing clearer to
applicants to ensure, for instance, that they set aside enough time for
the process and are not forced to withdraw their application/cancel
their trip due to timing issues.
This scenario ranks as number 10 out of the 11 scenarios in terms of
potential for increasing the number of travellers. Thus, it will not be
included in the further economic analysis.
This scenario would address the issue brought up in the literature
review as well as by some of the interviewed travel agents that
travellers sometimes do not feel particularly welcome at some
Schengen consulates and feel that they receive poor service, which
may deter them from going through the Schengen visa processing or,
alternatively, practice “visa shopping”. To address this issue, new
standards could be set and implemented for the service to be provided
to applicants at Schengen consulates.
The travellers, however, did not find that this was among the most
pertinent issues to address in the Schengen visa processing. In fact,
they ranked this facilitation measures lowest of all in terms of whether
it would induce them to travel more to the Schengen area. By this
effect, this scenario will not be included in the further economic
analysis.
The Visa Code regulates and the Schengen visa handbook guides the
issuance of Multiple-entry visas. These shall only be issued to persons
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
entry visas
fulfilling specific criteria, such as frequent (business) travellers and
others who can document a legitimate need for several subsequent
entries to the Schengen area .
50
Thus, within the current legal framework the use of MEVs cannot be
increased by applying it to a wider group of applicants outside the
realms of the stipulated criteria. Meanwhile, statistics on the current
issuance of MEVs by Schengen countries indicate that some Schengen
consulates could make wider use of the possibility to issue MEVs
rather than single-entry visas (see section 2.2.4 of this report), even
within the current legal framework. Thus, the wider use of MEVs could
be actively encouraged by the Commission.
The scenario is assessed as having no or only low potential security
policy implications, as only “trusted travellers” are eligible for MEVs.
This scenario was indicated by travellers as one of the preferred
options that would induce them to travel more to the Schengen area.
Hence, it will be included as one of the options in the further economic
impact assessment.
10. Longer
validity for
visas
Expected effects on stakeholders:
 Travellers from target countries: more inclined to travel to
Schengen  increase in number of tourists,
 Schengen tourism industry: increased income from increased
number of tourists,
 Schengen consulates: potential for decreased costs by avoiding
the processing of multiple, subsequent visa applications from
the same persons; also implies decreased income from visa
fees,
 Border control personnel: no effect.
To extend the validity of short-stay Schengen visas to more than the
current maximum of 90 days would require legislative changes.
Meanwhile, the 90-days framework could potentially leave more room
for flexibility than according to current practices, as outlined by
secondary legislation (i.e. the Schengen visa handbook). The
handbook specifies that the period of validity issued should be
calculated according to the following: date of arrival + duration of stay
+ 15 days “period of grace” . Depending on the length of stay, of
course, there could still be a margin up to 90 days maximum validity.
To allow for more flexibility in terms of specific travel days, it could be
considered to adjust practices to issuing visas for a certain number of
days (within the 90-days frame) and apply such specific days. The
introduction of such flexibility was proposed by some of the
interviewed travel agents as a valuable potential improvement, as it
would, for instance, allow for a change in specific travel days after the
visa has been issued, as long as it remains within the period for which
the visa is issued.
51
This scenario is an interesting option to discuss, especially given that
it ranks among those with the highest potential effect on the number
50
Schengen Visa Code, article 24(2)
Consolidated version of the Handbook for the processing of visa applications and the modification of
issued visas; section 9.1.1.1.; p. 67.
51
August 2013
83
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
of travellers from the target countries to the Schengen area. The
scenario is furthermore assessed as having no or only low potential
security policy implications. For these reasons, it will be included in
the further analysis and discussions.
11. Possibility
for visa on
arrival
Expected effects on stakeholders:
 Travellers from target countries: more inclined to travel to
Schengen  increase in number of tourists,
 Schengen tourism industry: increased income from increased
number of tourists,
 Schengen consulates: no effect,
 Border control personnel: no effect.
Introducing a possibility for visa on arrival is regarded as the furthest
possible step to be taken in terms of visa facilitation before the point
of actual visa liberalisation. It would allow for travellers from certain
countries to acquire a visa from the immigration authorities at the
arrival airport. To avoid travellers having to go through the same
lengthy procedures as when applying for visas at consulates in the
home country, only at the Schengen airport instead, the documentary
requirements would have to be softened to allow for a fast, on-thespot processing.
Such a form of visa issuance exists in some countries elsewhere in the
world but is not currently an option for Schengen visas. Introducing
this option would thus require substantial changes to the legal
framework and is not, as such, considered a feasible option. Moreover,
it is assessed as having some potential security implications, given
that, while not a total liberalisation, it would require a relaxation of
the visa requirements for travellers from the six countries, which
would reduce the Schengen border management’s means for control.
Meanwhile, it is interesting to include in the further analysis for
comparison purposes, given that this option, in theory, should have
the largest effect on number of travellers to Schengen (after visa-free
entry), as it provides visa facilitation to the furthest extent possible.
Expected effects on stakeholders:
 Travellers from target countries: more inclined to travel to
Schengen  increase in number of tourists,
 Schengen tourism industry: increased income from increased
number of tourists,
 Schengen consulates: reduced costs for processing visas at
consulates in target countries; costs transferred to immigration
authorities at airports, although at expected reduced costs due
to faster processing,
 Border control personnel: increased costs (number of manhours, immigration authorities) for processing at bordercrossings.
Based on the outline of the scenarios above and the considerations regarding whether
or not their potential for intervention lies within the scope of this study (i.e. has the
prospective to significantly increase travel from the target countries to the Schengen
area), the preferred options that will be further analysed in the economic impact
assessment are:
84
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Status quo/”do nothing”,
Visa-free entry,
Online application procedure,
Less documentary/administrative requirements,
MEVs rather than single-entry visas,
Longer validity for visas,
Possibility for visa on arrival.
Both the scenarios for online application procedure and for issuing MEVs rather than
SEVs have the above outlined limitations that, at least within the current legal
framework, they only apply to selected travellers, i.e. those considered eligible for
waiving the requirement to meet in person and multiple Schengen area entry. The
options are still included in the further analysis, for the reasons also outlined above,
but the calculated potential economic impact has to be interpreted with care,
considering that these facilitation measures cannot necessarily be applied to all
travellers.
The figure below illustrates a (simplified) version of the intervention logic for the
seven scenarios.
Figure 54: Intervention logic for selected scenarios
What the figure also illustrates is the progress of the analysis up until this point: the
identification of the drivers and problems illustrated in the blue boxes, and of the
preferred scenarios for further visa facilitation (green boxes). The assessment of the
economic impact, to be developed in the subsequent section, will estimate the
outcomes and effects of the selected options in quantitative terms (red and pink
boxes).
The economic analysis begins by outlining and assessing the baseline scenario (i.e. the
do nothing/status quo scenario; first green box under “Intervention” in Figure 54).
Then an assessment and calculation is made of the potential numbers of additional
August 2013
85
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
travellers that would come to the Schengen area if there was visa-free entry from the
six target countries (scenario 1 in the figure above). This potential equals the number
of tourists from the six countries that are currently “lost” and will continue to be so if
no further steps are taken towards visa liberalisation or facilitation (i.e. the first red
box under “Results” in Figure 54, the consequence of doing nothing).
The economic impact analysis then proceeds to assess how large a share of these
tourists who are currently not travelling to the Schengen area (at all or as much as
they could) that might be gained and attracted by the idea of travelling to the
Schengen area if the visa processing was further facilitated by one of the selected
scenarios. The facilitation scenarios are estimated and compared in terms of their
potential to increase the number of tourists (i.e. second red box under “Results” in the
figure above) and the potential economic gain for Schengen economies from these
tourists’ spending during their visits (i.e. second pink box under “Impacts” in the
figure above).
Finally the cost-benefit analysis carries on from the economic impact assessment by
comparing the potential benefits to be gained from the different scenarios with the
assessed costs of implementing these procedures (i.e. third red box under “Results” in
the table above), and makes a final ranking of the different scenarios in terms of their
net-present value.
5.3
Economic impact analysis
The following sections present the model for calculating and analysing the economic
impact of the estimated number of travellers that the Schengen area currently misses
out on, due to issues related to the Schengen visa procedure, as outlined in the above
analyses. This is followed by an analysis of the potential economic benefits to be
gained from the different visa facilitation options outlined above.
As with any other economic model, the results depend on the assumptions and choices
made for the data input. Different choices could fabricate different results. What is
important to stress is that the choices and assumptions made are based on careful
considerations of pros, cons and alternatives, and on internationally recognised
methods and statistics. The reasoning and choices behind the model are unfolded
along with the analysis (for an overview of the different sources, data input, etc.
please see annex IX). In general, this assessment, by choice, employs quite
conservative estimates. This is done in order to obtain the most reliable results under
the premise of imperfect knowledge. Throughout the analysis, however, the
calculations are presented in both a “conservative” and a “probable” scenario. This is
to underline the fact that the assessment rests on assumptions and is based on survey
responses from a sample of current and potential travellers (see also section 1.2). The
actual outcome, if changes are implemented, will also be affected by other, exogenous
factors such as economic growth, which cannot be taken into account in the model.
5.3.1
Baseline (“do nothing”) scenario
In this study, the baseline is represented by the number of travellers from the six
target countries to the Schengen area if no visa facilitation is implemented (the “do
nothing” scenario). The baseline is therefore equal to the current number of visa
travellers from the six target countries to the Schengen area. Moreover, due to an
expected continued positive economic development in the six target countries, the
number of travellers from the six countries to the Schengen area (and the rest of the
world) is expected to increase over the coming years, even without any intervention in
86
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
the visa practices. This is factored in by an estimation of the “natural” growth in the
number of travellers, over the next five years, in the baseline scenario.
The baseline thus consists of:
a) The number of current travellers,
b) The “natural” growth in the number of travellers from the six target countries,
without intervention.
The current number of travellers can be established by using the visa statistics from
the European Commission, DG Home.
The latest visa statistics from DG Home are from 2012, and will be used throughout
this study as the number of current travellers from the six target countries to the
Schengen area. The DG Home visa statistics, however, only provide the number of
visas issued – including both single-entry and multiple-entry visas - and is thus not a
direct reflection of the number of trips, given that one MEV may equal several trips to
the Schengen area. To get a more accurate assessment of the number of trips
undertaken per year, we include the findings from the travellers-survey, in which the
respondents indicated that they travel once a year on average. Hence, the number of
visas issued within one year can actually be considered an indication of the number of
trips undertaken within one year , as, according to the travel patterns indicated by the
survey respondents, it appears that most subsequent entries (with MEVs) are done
over more than one year. Table 14 lists the current number of travellers per target
country.
52
Table 14: Current number of travellers per target country, 2012 (in 1 000)
Target markets
Current no. of travellers
1 186
China
474
India
5 940
Russia
248
Saudi Arabia
180
South Africa
Ukraine
1 283
Total
9 310
Sources: DG Home (Visa statistics), Travellers-survey
The numbers of current travellers and potential first-time travellers to the Schengen
area from the target countries are expected to change over the lifetime of the
analysis, even if no changes are made to the visa procedures. According to studies by
the UNWTO and the ETC, outbound travel from the target countries has increased by
more than 5 % annually during the 2000's . Given the continuous economic growth in
the target countries, more and more people become eligible (financially) to travel
abroad, and may consider the Schengen area as a potential destination. This upward
movement in the social groups and natural increase in the potential number of visitors
cannot be captured in the current visa statistics or by the respondents from the
travellers-survey. Hence, a growth factor for each target country is employed to
capture the expected natural development in the number of travellers to the Schengen
area. The growth factors are based on UNWTO statistics on projected growth factors
for 2010 to 2020 and implemented for all travellers. Table 15 lists the growth factors
employed for each target country.
53
52
1 (trip per year on average) x number of visas issued in 2012 = number of trips in one year
The figure is taken from outbound travel market reports from China, India, Russia, and the Middle East by
UNWTO and ETC.
53
August 2013
87
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 15: Annual growth factor
Target markets
China
Growth factor
5.0 %
India
5.0 %
Russia
2.1 %
Saudi Arabia
3.0 %
South Africa
4.5 %
Ukraine
2.1 %
Weighted average
2.7 %
Source: UNWTO 54
Note: For all the target countries a growth rate for international tourism by region of origin to advanced economies are
used.
It is important to note that some of the target markets, especially the Asian countries,
have very high growth rates compared with the annual average expected increase in
travellers to Europe (from all countries), which is 2.7 % for the years from 2010 to
2020 .
55
Figure 55 shows the development of the baseline of travellers from the six target
countries for a five-year-period, when the above growth rates (Table 15) are factored
in.
Figure 55: Baseline – natural growth in number of travellers from the six
target markets to the Schengen area, over five years (in million travellers)
10,5
Million travellers
10,0
9,5
Baseline
9,0
8,5
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
The initial starting point is 9.3 million travellers per year, which, after five years have
grown to 10.6 million travellers, an increase of 11 %. Cumulatively, it can be
expected that 49.1 million travellers from the six target countries will travel to the
Schengen area over a five year period. By not implementing any facilitation measures
to the current visa practices, it can therefore still be expected that there will be a
constant increase in the amount of travellers from the six target countries.
However, as the survey among travellers indicated, due to the current visa practices,
a proportion of travellers (including both people who have never been before and
54
Available at:
http://cestur.sectur.gob.mx/descargas/Publicaciones/Boletin/cedoc2012/cedoc2011/unwto2030.pdf
55
UNWTO
88
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
persons who have visited the Schengen area in the past) from the six target countries
are deterred from travelling to the Schengen area (at all or again). To estimate the
potential gain from the different visa facilitation options, it is important to first
illustrate this current “loss” – i.e. the number of travellers that the Schengen countries
are missing out on, due to cumbersome visa practices. The coming section will
establish a methodology to estimate the current loss, in number of travellers, and the
consequent economic loss to the Schengen tourism industry and the overall economy.
5.3.2
Travellers lost
To illustrate the impact of the loss of travellers due to the current visa practices, the
current number of travellers deterred by the visa practices is first estimated, to then
identify the potential gain from visa facilitation.
The maximum potential gain from a change in the visa practices is expected to stem
from a total visa liberalisation. It is assumed that all those travellers who are currently
deterred from travelling to the Schengen area (for the first time or again), due to the
visa requirements, would travel if there was visa-free entry. The estimated number of
travellers in the visa-free scenario is thus equal to the number of travellers currently
lost. And it is assumed that this proportion of potential travellers will continue to be
lost if the status quo is maintained (i.e. neither visa liberalisation nor any further
facilitation).
The total number of travellers lost due to current visa practices is the combined
number of current travellers , who would travel more to the Schengen area if the visa
practices were facilitated, and potential new first-time travellers , who are deterred
from travelling to the Schengen area under the current visa regime.
56
57
In the visa statistics from DG Home, the current amount of visas not issued is
portrayed. The figure for non-issued visas includes visa applications that have been
refused due to security measures, uncertainties regarding proof of funding or will to
return, and applicants who have withdrawn their visa application for various unknown
reasons. A share of the non-issued visas is thus applicants who have retracted their
visa application due to the current visa practices. These could be used as an indication
of persons who would potentially travel to the Schengen area if visa facilitation
measures were implemented. The figures for non-issued visa are, however, very low
for all of the six target countries, ranging from 1 % in Russia and South Africa to
6 % in India (see Table 16), and it is moreover not possible from the statistics to
separate the withdrawn visa applications from actual refusals.
Table 16 "Non-issued visa" rates for C-visas to the Schengen area, 2012
Target markets
Non-issued visa rate in %
China
4
India
6
Russia
1
Saudi Arabia
2
South Africa
1
Ukraine
2
Source: DG Home (Visa statistics)
56
Respondents who answered that they had been in a Schengen country at least once in the last five years.
Respondents who answered that they had never been in a Schengen country, but were familiar with the
visa procedures
57
August 2013
89
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Due to these uncertainties related to the statistics on visa refusals, the number of
travellers lost is estimated using the travellers-survey. In the survey, the respondents
were asked whether or not they had travelled to the Schengen area before, if they
considered the Schengen area as a destination, were familiar with the current
Schengen visa procedures, and whether different potential visa facilitation measures
would induce them to travel to the Schengen area. The number of travellers lost is
calculated on the basis of respondents who said they would travel “a lot” more, if
there was visa free entry to the Schengen area.
The group of “travellers lost” comprises two estimates: 1) the number of lost trips by
current travellers; and 2) the number of lost trips by potential first-time travellers.
As mentioned above, in the travellers-survey the respondents indicated that they
travel once a year on average. On this basis, the number of extra trips per current
traveller is calculated using the current number of travellers (based on the visa
statistics) and the percentage of additional trips per current traveller (based on the
answers from the travellers-survey).
The travellers-survey contains a proportion of current travellers, potential first-time
travellers (those who have not yet visited the Schengen area but say they are familiar
with the visa practices) and travellers that are not aware of the Schengen visa
practices. This is used as a basis for calculating the number of potential first-time
travellers lost. The number generated from the survey, however, is only a sample of
the actual potential. It is meanwhile assumed that the relative distribution of current
travellers, potential first-time travellers and others, in the survey, will hold for the
entire population. Hence, the number of first-time travellers from the survey can be
scaled up by relating the share of first-time travellers from the survey sample to the
number of current travellers (based on DG Home visa statistics), providing an
estimation of the number of potential first-time travellers for the entire population.
As for the current travellers, it is assumed (on the basis of survey responses) that the
number of trips per first-time traveller is equal to one per year.
It can be argued that the number of lost trips by first-time travellers is too high, since
a small percentage of applicants would have had their visa application rejected under
the current visa regulation. The current refusal figure is therefore applied to the
potential first-time travellers, to get a more correct estimate of the number of lost
tourists due to the current visa regulation. As discussed earlier, the refusal figure also
includes travellers who have withdrawn their visa application, and applying the total
refusal figure will therefore result in an underestimation of the potential first-time
travellers. The refusal figures are rather minor, and thus have a rather moderate
mitigating effect on the figure for potential first-time travellers. The potential effects
on the number of additional travellers and the resulting impact on the model are
included in the sensitivity analysis of the cost-benefit analysis through an increase and
decrease in the total number of additional travellers. Furthermore, the calculated
number of additional travellers is also supported by the rough estimates made by the
respondents from the travel agents-survey.
58
58
The travel agents-survey could also have been used to estimate the number of additional travellers due to
a change in visa practises. The responses provided by travel agents were, however, quite different and
sometimes difficult to compare between countries. The travel agencies' size measured on the number of
customers to the Schengen area also differed a lot, rendering some of the information provided more
uncertain and the data collected quite volatile. In general, these figures can only provide a rough estimate
of the resulting effect from a specific visa facilitation change, wherefore the travel agents-survey is only
used to validate the results.
90
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 17 shows the calculated total number of travellers lost due to current visa
practices.
Table 17: Travellers lost due to current visa practices, per target country,
year 1 (in 1 000 persons)
Target markets
Current travellers; no.
of travellers lost
First-time travellers;
no. of travellers lost
Total
no. of travellers lost
China
597
49
646
India
366
84
450
3 540
462
4 002
Saudi Arabia
161
126
286
South Africa
107
35
142
Ukraine
941
130
1 071
5 712
885
6 597
Russia
Total
Sources: Travellers-survey, DG Home (Visa statistics), and own calculations
Note: Travellers lost is equivalent to the number of lost trips.
Russia is the target country with the largest share of travellers lost due to current visa
practices, accounting for over half of the total lost influx of travellers. The total
number of travellers lost from Russia amounts to 4 million. Here 3.5 million are from
current travellers that would travel more, and the number of travellers that would
begin travelling to the Schengen area if there were no visa requirements amounts to
0.5 million. Visa-free entry to the Schengen area for South Africans (equivalent to the
potential travellers currently lost) would have the smallest effect measured in the total
number of lost travellers. A change in the visa procedure (visa-free entry) could,
according to our calculations, potentially lead to an extra influx of 142 000 travellers
from South Africa to the Schengen area.
The relative effects of the current visa regime on the number of first-time travellers
lost are largest for Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, nearly half of the total travellers lost
are travellers that have never visited the Schengen area.
Table 18 lists the current number of travellers (based on the visa statistics) plus the
estimated number of travellers lost due to the current visa regime.
Table 18: Baseline (current level of travellers) + potential number of
travellers, year 1 (in 1 000 persons)
1 186
No. of travellers lost
(total)
646
474
Current travellers
China
Total potential
travellers
1 832
450
924
5 940
4 002
9 942
Saudi Arabia
248
286
534
South Africa
180
India
Russia
Ukraine
Total
142
322
1 283
1 071
2 354
9 310
6 597
15 907
Sources: Travellers-survey, DG Home (Visa statistics), and own calculations
Note: Travellers lost is equivalent to the number of lost trips.
The above calculations show that the total number of travellers from the six target
countries (counting both the current and the potential; i.e. those currently lost) could
be as high as 15.9 million, where 9.3 million stem from current travellers. This
indicates that there is a large potential pool of extra travellers, since nearly 6 million
travellers are lost per year.
August 2013
91
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
In fact, this pool might be even larger, considering that the calculations are based on
a sample of persons (the panel survey) who are already travelling (i.e. have travelled
abroad - to any destination, not only Schengen countries); and thus it disregards
potential "newly rich" travellers, i.e. persons who, due to economic growth etc.,
become financially eligible to travel abroad (possibly to the Schengen area) for the
first time. As outlined above, this development and expected “natural” increase in the
number of travellers can to an extent be factored into the model by using forecasted
rates for the natural growth.
By incorporating the UNWTO forecasted growth rates for the number of travellers from
the target countries to Europe (see Table 15) into the model, we are able to estimate
the number of lost travellers over a five year spectre (see Table 19).
Table 19: Minimum number of lost travellers, year 1-5 (in 1 000)
Baseline
Number of lost
travellers
Total number of
potential travellers
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
9 310
9 560
9 818
10 084
10 359
Cumulative
number of
travellers
49 132
6 597
6 773
6 955
7 143
7 336
34 803
15 907
16 333
16 773
17 227
17 695
83 935
Source: DG Home visa statistics, own calculations
Note: Growth factors for the increase in travellers are taken from Table 15
Table 19 shows that the minimum cumulative loss is 34.8 million travellers over a
five-year period. It is assessed that the number might in fact be higher (hence
“minimum”), considering that the model relies on rather conservative estimates of the
number of trips per traveller lost and the fact that the survey was only carried out
with a specific sample of travellers, meaning that some potential travellers (e.g. from
lower income groups) may have been left out.
A distribution of travellers lost per Member State has been estimated on the basis of
the current number of visas issued per target country. Using the visa statistics as a
basis for these calculations however raises an issue since a third-country national can
apply for a visa in Spain, but also visit several other countries during his/her stay in
the Schengen area. As such, a traveller lost for one country (the one that issued the
visa) can in fact be a traveller lost for several countries, and the economic impact of
one traveller (calculated below) would in reality be spread more evenly over several
countries. These behavioural consequences are however not possible to include in the
model due to a lack of data on travel patterns for third-country nationals between
Schengen Member States.
Based on the calculated distribution of number of travellers lost per Member State (for
an overview see annex VII), the numbers of travellers lost are highest for Finland,
Italy and Spain. The number of travellers lost for Finland is especially high and is
driven by a very large share of travellers from Russia applying for Schengen visas for
Finland. However, the large number of Russian visa applicants to Finland (and the high
visa issuance rates) indicates a potential saturation and that the estimated potential
increase in travellers between these two countries may be over-estimated. If Russian
applicants are removed from Finnish data, Finland's figure of additional travellers will
be on similar levels as Denmark, Slovenia and Portugal (see Annex VII). Another
proportionally high figure is the number of travellers from Ukraine to Poland. Poland
experienced a large increase in the number of visa applicants from Ukraine in 2012
due to the 2012 UEFA European Football Championship, hosted by Poland and
92
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Ukraine. If this number is factored out from the calculation of lost travellers, Poland
will be at the same level in terms of lost travellers as Hungary and Switzerland.
Table 20 divides the number of lost travellers according to the purposes of their trips,
with the assumption that the division on purpose of trip provided by the respondents
from the travellers-survey can be transferred to the entire population of "lost
travellers".
Table 20: Travellers lost due to current visa practices, in year 1, divided by
purpose of trip
Business
and
leisure
Family
visit
China
India
Russia
Saudi
Arabia
South
Africa
Ukraine
Total
223
215
861
70
34
361
2 088
15
40
227
10
29
46
473
27
56
181
44
18
46
518
372
125
2 658
130
58
593
3 326
10
14
45
26
2
25
166
Other
-
-
30
5
1
-
25
Total
646
450
4 002
286
142
1 071
6 597
Business
Leisure
Education
Source: Travellers-survey, DG Home (Visa statistics)
The two most frequent purposes for trips are leisure and business (in combination)
and leisure, which constitute a combined share of 82 % of all trips. Adding
“Business”, which ranks third among the most frequent travel purposes, these three
combined account for approximately 90 % of all trips from the six target markets to
the Schengen area. In contrast, education-related trips only account for 3 % of all
trips, based on our sample.
5.3.3
Economic impact of travellers lost
This section outlines and assesses the economic impact of the current Schengen visa
practices’ effect on travel from the target countries to the Schengen area (i.e. the
economic impact of the “lost” travellers).
The direct economic loss due to the current visa practises is simplified to constitute an
assessment of the foregone spending of the calculated number of “lost” travellers. The
foregone spending of lost travellers is estimated on the basis of statistics on the
average spending of outbound travellers from each target country.
Two different sets of figures for average spending per stay are used to give both a
“conservative” and a more “probable” estimate of the economic impact of an
additional traveller to the Schengen area from the specific target country. This method
is carried out due to a lack of reliable data on spending by travellers from the target
countries in the Schengen area specifically.
The "conservative" scenario is based on UNWTO statistics, showing the total number
of outbound travellers and their spending abroad from the six target countries. These
figures do not represent specific spending in the Schengen area, per traveller, per stay
from each of the six target countries, but are instead an estimation of the average
expenditure per traveller per stay abroad in general (any destination) from each of the
six target countries. As such, all stays abroad are included in the estimated average,
August 2013
93
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
both short trips, trips to neighbouring countries, long trips, and trips to other
continents.
It can be assumed that such an average will underestimate the actual level of
expenditure, because the Schengen countries in general are far away from, at least
four of the six target countries. Thus, a stay in the Schengen area can be assumed to
be of a longer duration and thus of a more expensive nature, than the average
expenditure per stay abroad given by the UNWTO (global) numbers. For Russian and
Ukrainian visitors to the Schengen area, however, the number of short trips is likely to
be higher (given that they are neighbouring countries), so most likely the UNWTO
average is more applicable to tourists from these two target markets. The UNWTO
statistics are, however, the most reliable source for expenditure levels per stay for the
six target countries, and as such provides the model with a conservative estimation of
the average expenditure for international travellers from all of the six target countries.
The "probable" scenario consists of U.S. figures for those countries where the
Schengen area can be considered a long-haul destination (i.e. China, India, South
Africa and Saudi Arabia). The higher spending figure for Chinese travellers is further
validated by a survey which states that Chinese travellers to various EU states spent,
on average, EUR 3 000 per trip in 2005 .
59
According to national statistics, a Russian traveller to Spain and Denmark uses
respectively EUR 1.468 and EUR 1.134 per trip . The "probable" scenario thus includes
a simple average of these two spending figures. That the most probable spending
figure is somewhere in this area is validated by statistics which show that a Russian
traveller to France has an average spending of EUR 1.000 per day .
60
61
For Ukraine the spending figure is scaled up with the same ratio between the
"conservative" and "probable" scenarios as applied for Russia (i.e. 581 relative to
1 301).
The real underlying average spending per stay per traveller might lie somewhere in
between the "conservative" and the "probable" scenario, but it is likely to be more
towards the high (i.e. the “probable”) than the low (i.e. the “conservative”) end of the
scale.
Table 21: Average spending per stay, (in EUR 2012-prices)
Low
(“conservative”
scenario)
High
(“probable”
scenario)
China
India
Russia
Saudi
Arabia
South
Africa
Ukraine
Weighted
average
809
768
581
885
758
177
809
3 689
3 674
1 301
4 371
2 675
395
1 240
Source: UNWTO 2012, Visit Denmark, IET.Egatur 62, http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/
Note: Excluding travel cost to destination.
Table 21 shows the average spending per traveller per stay for each of the target
countries. Travellers from China, India, Saudi Arabia and South Africa have an
average spending per trip in the interval of EUR 768 to EUR 4 371. This is a
The Chinese Outbound Travel Market by UNWTO, ETC, 2012
Visit Denmark and IET.Egatur at http://www.iet.tourspain.es/enEN/estadisticas/egatur/paginas/default.aspx
61
http://www.imm-international.com/russian-tourists-spending-travel-habits/
62
Available at: http://www.iet.tourspain.es/en-EN/estadisticas/egatur/paginas/default.aspx
59
60
94
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
considerably higher amount than the equivalent numbers for Ukrainians and Russians,
where average spending per trip is respectively EUR 177 and EUR 581 for the
"conservative" scenario, and EUR 395 and EUR 1 301 for the "probable" scenario.
The spending numbers per target country can be combined with the calculated
number of lost travellers to obtain the direct economic effect of the current visa
regime.
Table 22: Direct economic impact of travellers lost (million EUR)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Direct effect*
“Conservative”
“Probable”
3 745
3 854
3 966
4 082
4 203
11 297
11 672
12 061
12 465
12 885
Source: WTTC 2012, own calculations
Note "*": Direct effect is the tourism spending in the directly affected sectors
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 15.
The direct effect is EUR 3.7 billion and EUR 11.3 billion for respectively conservative
and probable average expenditure figures in year 1.
The spending numbers can be combined with the calculated number of lost travellers
distributed per Member State and target countries to obtain the direct economic
effect on each Member State of the current visa regime. The lost spending
per Member State is highest for Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain. If
Russian applicants are removed from Finnish data (due to the considerations outlined
above), Finland's figure of lost spending will lie in a more modest level. The total loss
for the Member States might, as previously mentioned, be higher or lower, depending
on travel patterns between the Schengen Member States after arrival to the
Schengen area. For the division of lost consumption, due to current visa practices, per
Member State and target country see Annex VII.
Impact on tourism sectors
The distribution of spending in the Member States’ tourism sectors has been
estimated on the basis of the current division of spending per traveller. The OECD has,
in 2010, calculated a division of inbound tourism expenditure, based on the Tourism
Satellite Account (TSA) framework, for the majority of the Schengen Member States.
For the few remaining Member States , a weighted average is applied.
63
The tourism sectors identified by the OECD, based on the TSA framework, are:
 Accommodation services,
 Food and beverage serving services,
 Passenger transport services,
 Travel services,
 Other tourism services,
 Goods, distribution margins, services.
This sector division is constructed by the OECD; however, not all countries have
similar divisions on tourism spending, wherefore some of the categories used in
national calculations have been further contracted to fit into the more overall labels
used by the OECD.
64
63
Austria, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta
The accommodation services consist of different types of accommodations: hotels, motels, hostels, B&B's,
camping grounds, etc. Food and beverage serving services consists of: restaurants, cafés, bars, delis, etc.
The passenger transport services consist of different modes of local transportation such as: railway services,
64
August 2013
95
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 56 shows the division of lost expenditure on the different tourism sectors for
the Schengen area in year 1.
Figure 56: Division of lost expenditure on tourism
“conservative” and “probable” spending scenario, year 1
sectors
for
a
Source: OECD
Travel services and other tourism services are only losing out on approximately 10 %
of the total lost spending. In contrast, accommodation services, passenger transport
services, food and beverage serving services and goods, distribution margins , other
services lose out on between 19 % and 26 % of the potential additional spending.
For a division of the lost expenditure on the different tourism sectors, per Member
State, see Annex VII.
65
Direct, indirect and induced effects
In an economic impact study, the focus is on the incomes and jobs that are generated
in an area, directly and indirectly, and the income and jobs that are induced by the
direct and indirect effects. In the above sections, the direct effect has been
determined, in terms of direct expenditure by travellers. In the following, the total
amounts of income and employment will thus be estimated, in terms of direct and
indirect effects, and induced effects.
The direct, indirect and induced effects have been calculated using Member State
specific data on the economic impact of travel from the WTTC. The calculations are
based on a weighted average of data for the Schengen Member States, wherefore
some inter-community trade might occur that can lower the import propensity.
ferry services, bus services, and domestic flights. Travel services consist of local travel agencies and tour
operators. Other tourism services are a combination of several divisions, where cultural services, recreation
and entertainment, and other tourism related services are included. Goods, distribution margins and
services consist of all other goods, such as consumer goods and other general non-traveller related goods
and services.
65
Distribution margins are the difference between the off-factory price of the specific good and the
corresponding price for consumers.
96
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
The direct effect is the travellers’ spending in the directly affected sectors. Costs of
inputs correspond to the tourism providers’ cost for inputs to provide their final
product to the travellers, and this category includes imported goods. Direct
Contribution to GDP is thus the direct economic input to the Schengen area, which is
equivalent to the direct effect less the costs of inputs for the tourism sector including
imported goods. The foregone direct effect of tourism spending could have implied
further indirect and induced effects to GDP. Therefore, other final impacts and induced
effects are taken into account net of imported goods, when evaluating the total lost
contribution to GDP. When including the indirect and induced effects of traveller
spending on GDP, it is necessary to add the supply chain effects, which is the direct
purchases of goods and services by the tourism sector inside the Schengen area.
Imported goods from indirect spending have to be subtracted from the GDP, as
imported goods bought by indirect spending does not provide a contribution to the
GDP of the Schengen area. Moreover, the induced effects are equivalent to the
broader contribution from employees that are directly and indirectly employed in the
tourism sector.
Table 23 lists the direct, indirect and induced effects, and total contribution to GDP for
the Schengen area for both the "conservative" and the "probable" spending scenario
for year 1.
Table 23: Lost contribution to GDP, year 1 (million EUR)
conservative
probable
3 745
11 297
Costs of inputs
-1 925
-5 806
Direct Lost Contribution to GDP
1 821
5 492
Supply Chain effects
1 769
5 337
-343
-1 035
962
2 903
4 209
12 697
Direct effect*
Imported goods from indirect spending
Induced effects
Total Lost Contribution to GDP
Source: WTTC 2012, own calculations
Note: Direct contribution to GDP is not the total of all Schengen countries, since the import proportion between Schengen
countries are disregarded on the overall level. Indirect increased governmental spending and capital investment are ignored
in the framework.
Note*: Direct effect is the tourism spending in the directly affected sectors
The direct effect is EUR 3.7 billion and EUR 11.3 billion for respectively conservative
and probable average expenditure figures in year 1. This direct effect is equivalent to
tourism spending in the directly affected sectors. The division of spending in the
tourism sectors for the "conservative" and "probable” scenarios can be seen in Annex
VII.
The foregone direct effect of tourism spending would have implied further supply chain
effects to GDP of EUR 1.8 billion and EUR 5.3 billion for respectively the "conservative"
and the "probable" scenarios in year 1. Supply chain effects are from direct purchases
of goods and services by the tourism sector. EUR 0.3 billion and EUR 1.0 billion of
these goods are imported and are thus not included in the total contribution to GDP in
year 1. The spending of employees in the tourism sector, i.e. the "Induced effects",
account for a further
EUR 1 billion and EUR 2.9 billion for respectively the
"conservative" and "probable" scenario in year 1.
August 2013
97
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
The total lost contribution to GDP when subtracting costs of inputs from imported
goods are therefore EUR 4.2 billion and EUR 12.7 billion for respectively the
"conservative" and the "probable" scenario.
Table 24 shows the direct, indirect and induced, and total lost contribution to GDP for
the Schengen area for both the "conservative" and the "probable" spending scenario,
over a five year period.
Table 24: Lost contribution to GDP, years 1-5 (million EUR)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
conservative
1 821
1 873
1 928
1 985
2 043
probable
5 492
5 674
5 863
6 059
6 264
Direct Lost Contribution to GDP
Indirect and Induced Lost Contribution to GDP
conservative
2 389
2 458
2 530
2 604
2 681
probable
7 205
7 444
7 693
7 950
8 218
4 209
4 331
4 458
4 588
4 724
12 697
13 118
13 556
14 010
14 482
Total Lost Contribution to GDP
conservative
probable
Source: WTTC 2012, own calculations
Note: Direct contribution to GDP is not the total of all Schengen countries, since the import proportion between Schengen
countries are disregarded on the overall level. Indirect increased governmental spending and capital investment are ignored
in the framework.
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 15.
Note: Indirect and Induced Lost Contribution to GDP is the subtracted result of total lost contribution to GDP less the direct
lost contribution to GDP.
The direct lost contribution to GDP increases from EUR 1.8 billion and EUR 5.5 billion
in year 1 to EUR 2 billion and EUR 6.3 billion in year 5 for respectively the
conservative and probable scenario. Consequently the total lost contribution to GDP
increases from EUR 4.2 billion and EUR 12.7 billion in year 1 to EUR 4.7 billion and
EUR 14.5 billion in year 5 for respectively the conservative and probable scenario.
These figures are based on the growth factors from Table 15.
Lost contribution to employment
Additional travellers entering the Schengen area, and more specifically their spending
during the stay, will create jobs in for instance hotels, travel agencies, passenger
transportation services and activities in the food and beverages industries, and other
leisure industries that are directly supported by travellers.
On the basis of the above calculated figures for direct lost contribution to GDP,
Indirect and induced lost contribution to GDP, and total lost contribution to GDP we
can calculate the resulting number of jobs lost in the tourism industry. The WTTC
provide assessments of the relationship between these key figures and the number of
jobs in the tourism sectors. These ratios are applied to our calculations (cf. Table 23)
to estimate the number of lost jobs.
The ratios vary greatly across the different Member States. In the model a weighted
average is employed. With regards to the direct contribution to employment by
traveller expenditure, EUR 1 million of added expenditure provides 10 full time
employees. When including the indirect and the induced effects the total contribution
to employment is 21 full time employees per EUR 1 million of added traveller
98
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
expenditure. For the purpose of this report, 1 job is defined as the work/output of 1
full time employee over the timespan of 1 year, or the full time employment
equivalent (FTEE)(WTTC, 2012).
Table 25 shows the direct and total foregone contribution to employment for the
Schengen area, under the current Schengen visa regime in a "conservative" and a
"probable" spending scenario.
Table 25: Lost travellers' effect on employment, number of lost jobs, year 1-5
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Direct lost contribution to employment
37 443
conservative
38 530
39 654
40 816
42 019
112 950
116 696
120 586
124 628
128 827
Indirect and induced lost contribution to employment
42 905
44 151
conservative
129
427
133
719
probable
45 438
46 771
48 149
138 178
142 809
147 620
Total lost contribution to employment
80 349
conservative
242 377
probable
82 680
85 092
87 587
90 168
250 415
258 764
267 436
276 447
probable
Source: WTTC 2012, own calculations
Note: the contribution to employment figures are shown per year and grows in relation to the development of travellers
(growth factors from Table 15). 1 job is defined as the full time employment equivalent of the work/output of 1 employee
over the timespan of 1 year.
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 15.
In year 1, the number of lost FTEE's directly linked to foregone traveller expenditure in
the tourism industry in the Schengen area is 37 443 and 112 950 for respectively the
"conservative" and the "probable" scenario. The total number of lost FTEE's from
direct and indirect effects (e.g. FTEE's created from indirect spending) in the Schengen
area is 80 348 and 242 377 for respectively the "conservative" and the "probable"
scenario, in year 1.
5.3.4
Sum-up - total economic impact of tourists lost
The current loss of 6.6 million travellers due to the current visa practices is, as
mentioned earlier, a small fraction of the current total number of travellers in and to
the Schengen area, and as such the loss has a relatively small effect on the total
tourism sector, both in the Schengen area and in the individual Member States. It can,
however, be argued, that any loss of travellers to a country is equal to a reduction in
the variation and the dynamic aspects of the tourism sector.
The Schengen area is, according to our approach, losing a possible direct added value
of between EUR 1.8 billion and EUR 5.5 billion for respectively the "conservative" and
the "probable" scenario, due to foregone spending from lost travellers. Incorporating
indirect and induced effects lifts the possible loss to GDP as high as EUR 12.7 billion
per year in the "probable" scenario.
This total contribution to GDP can, according to our assessment, have a potential total
effect of 80 349 jobs and 242 377 jobs for respectively the "conservative" and the
"probable" scenario. The direct contribution to GDP results in a loss of 37 443 and
112 950 potential jobs in the Schengen area for respectively the "conservative" and
the "probable" scenario.
Finland, Italy and Spain are, according to our assessment, the countries that are
losing the most from the negative consequences of the current visa regime. It is
August 2013
99
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
however important to notice that the travel market for Russians to Finland might be
saturated, wherefore Finland's actual loss (and potential gain) might be somewhat
lower.
According to our model, assumptions and calculations, as outlined above,
accommodation services, food and beverages serving services, and passenger
transport services account for 64 % of the total loss to tourism sectors.
The target countries account for approximately 65 % of the market, so if the effects
documented in this study can be transferred to the remaining countries, the current
loss – and potential gain – might be even larger (see section 5.4.4).
5.4
Impact of possible facilitation measures
As outlined in the above, the current Schengen visa practices imply a loss of potential
travellers to the Schengen area. It is assumed that total visa liberalisation has the
potential to gain all the travellers currently lost. Meanwhile, some of the lost travellers
could potentially be more attracted by the Schengen area as a travel destination, even
if smaller steps are taken – towards visa facilitation.
The impact analysis sets out to assess the potential effect of six policy options
(alternative scenarios for visa liberalisation and facilitation):
1. Visa free travel ("Visa free"),
2. Online application ("Online Application"),
3. Less
administrative/documentary
requirements
requirements"),
4. Wider use of MEVs ("MEV"),
5. Longer validity of visas ("Longer Validity"),
6. Visa on arrival ("On Arrival").
("Less
documentary
Option 1, "Visa free" travel corresponds to the case where the baseline scenario is
completely reversed and no travellers are lost. Visa on arrival is considered the most
extreme of the facilitation scenarios – the step closest to a total liberalisation.
The methodology for estimating the potential growth in number of travellers and these
additional travellers’ potential impact on the Schengen economy follows the same
basic procedure as in the development of the baseline scenario and the estimation of
the economic impact of travellers lost, in the previous sections. To accommodate
easier comparisons and enhanced readability, all policy options are presented in the
same sections and tables. Similarly, for overview and comparison purposes, the
calculations presented in tables are only comparing the impact of the different
scenarios in year 1 and not over a five-year period (the five-year development in the
scenarios are illustrated in figures in the sum-up of the analysis in section 5.4.3).
Moreover, it should be noted that the different facilitation measures are to be
interpreted as individual options and not as additive solutions. In section 5.4.4, a
combined policy option, and the resulting extra number of travellers, is developed.
100
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
5.4.1
Estimation of growth in travel to Europe in visa facilitation scenarios
In section 5.3.1 it was described how the responses from the travellers-survey can be
used to indicate the potential effect of different visa facilitation measures on travel
patterns of current and potential first-time travellers to the Schengen area. Table 26
lists the potential increase in number of travellers from each target country to the
Schengen area due to the given facilitation measure.
Table 26: Increase in tourism per target country, year 1, (in 1 000 persons)
Target
market
1. Visa free
2. Online
Application
China
646
407
3. Less
documenta
ry
requiremen
ts
318
India
450
341
321
Russia
Saudi
Arabia
South Africa
4 002
2 815
286
Ukraine
Total
6 597
4. MEV
5. Longer
Validity
6. On
Arrival
448
434
397
339
340
335
2 443
3 397
3 001
3 072
216
181
208
195
232
142
122
105
116
114
111
1 071
704
673
816
714
663
4 605
4 042
5 324
4 798
4 810
Source: Travellers-survey, DG Home (Visa statistics), and own calculations
The "Visa free" entry scenario is the maximum possible impact scenario. The number
of additional travellers in a "Visa free" scenario will thus be the same as the number of
travellers lost.
Among the other scenarios, "MEV" has the largest potential effect on the number of
extra travellers, with an increase of nearly 5.3 million travellers. These account for
approximately 80 % of the potential extra travellers to be “won”, when considering
the maximum impact scenario of visa free entry, (i.e. the “MEV” policy option would
retrieve 80 % of the travellers lost in the baseline scenario).
"Online Application" has a larger effect on the number of travellers from India than
"MEV". However, "MEV" has a much higher positive effect on the number of extra
travellers from China than "Online Application". It is therefore relevant to consider the
shares of travellers from each of the target countries, since the travellers differ in
average spending per day.
Dividing the impacts on numbers of extra travellers per Member State, the potential
extra numbers of travellers will be largest for Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy,
Poland and Spain, in all scenarios. These seven countries stand to receive 73 % to
74 % of all extra travellers given the policy option. It is important to notice that these
distributions are based on the overall shares of visas currently issued by the Member
States in the target markets (in 2012), and thus do not take into account intraSchengen travel by third-country nationals. For an overview of the potential growth in
number of travellers divided on Member State and policy option see Annex VII.
August 2013
101
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
5.4.2
Estimation of economic impact of visa facilitation measures
The methodology for estimating the additional number of travellers' direct economic
impact follows the same basic procedure as in the assessment of the impact of
travellers lost (see section 5.3.3). The direct economic impact of the visa facilitation
scenarios is equal to the additional spending of the extra travellers estimated for each
scenario. Again, “conservative” and “probable” scenarios are calculated for each option
see (Table 27), using the same data input for travellers’ spending as in section 5.3.3.
Table 27: Direct economic impact of visa facilitation scenarios, "conservative"
and "probable" spending scenario, year 1 (million EUR)
66
2. Online
Applicati
on
3. Less
documen
tary
requirem
ents
3 745
2 636
2 284
3 014
2 742
2 772
11 297
7 965
6 873
8 860
8 193
8 267
1. Visa
free
Additional spending by
extra travellers
conservative
probable
4. MEV
5.
Longer
Validity
6. On
Arrival
Source: WTTC 2012 and own calculations
The "Visa free" scenario will generate an increase in the total spending by travellers of
between EUR 3.7 billion and EUR 11.3 billion for respectively the "conservative” and
the "probable" spending scenario. Of the facilitation scenarios, the policy option
regarding wider user of MEVs will have the largest direct effect on travellers’ spending
with an additional spending in the range from EUR 3 billion to EUR 8.9 billion, in a
"conservative" respectively a "probable" spending scenario.
Dividing the impacts per Member State, the potential gains from additional
consumption are largest for Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain in all
scenarios. These countries are also among the countries with the largest potential
influx of extra travellers. Poland, however, is also one of the countries with the highest
additional number of travellers inbound, but Poland is receiving smaller economic
gains due to their high proportion of travellers from Ukraine. The estimated proportion
of additional Russians travelling to Finland and Ukrainians travelling to Poland might
be over-estimated, for the same reasons as accounted for under the analysis of
travellers’ lost. This is important to keep in mind when evaluating the results (see
section 5.3.2). For an overview of the additional spending per policy option
and Member State see Annex VII.
Tourism sectors
The distribution of additional spending in the Member States’ tourism sectors has
been estimated on the basis of the current division of spending per traveller. The
OECD has, in 2010, calculated a division of inbound tourism expenditure, based upon
the Tourism Satellite Account (TSA) framework, for the majority of the
Schengen Member States. For the few remaining Member States , a weighted
average is applied. For a further explanation of the tourism sectors’ structure see
section 5.3.3.
67
The tourism sectors are:
 Accommodation services,
 Food and beverage serving services,
66
No pertinent statistical data was available for making projections of travellers’ (possibly increased)
spending in the future. Thus, only spending assessments for year 1 have been included in the model.
67
Austria, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta
102
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area




Passenger transport services,
Travel services,
Other tourism services,
Goods, distribution margins, services.
Table 28 lists the travellers’ additional spending per tourism sector for the
"conservative" and "probable" spending scenarios.
Table 28: Spending per sector for the Schengen tourism industry,
"conservative" and "probable" spending scenario, year 1 (million EUR)
Accommodatio
n services
Food and
beverage
serving
services
Passenge
r
transport
services
Travel
service
s*
Other
tourism
services*
*
Goods,
distribution
margins,
services
1. Visa Free
conservative
probable
701
853
827
73
316
975
2 108
2 602
2 523
205
1 010
2 849
2. Online Application
conservative
probable
493
601
583
51
223
685
1 487
1 835
1 781
144
712
2 005
427
520
504
44
192
596
1 283
1 582
1 535
125
610
1 738
564
686
665
59
252
788
1 654
2 037
1 976
163
782
2 248
3. Less documentary requirements
conservative
probable
4. MEV
conservative
probable
5. Longer Validity
conservative
probable
513
625
606
53
230
715
1 529
1 886
1 831
150
727
2 071
6. On Arrival
conservative
probable
519
632
613
54
233
721
1 544
1 904
1 848
151
736
2 084
Source: Travellers-survey, DG Home (Visa statistics), OECD 2010
Note "*": Travel services incl. travel agency, tour operator and tourist guide services.
Note "**": Other tourism services include cultural services, recreation, other entertainment services and other tourism
services.
Note: For Austria, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta a weighted average of the distribution
is applied
Travel services and other tourism services stand to gain approximately 10 % of the
total spending. In contrast, accommodation services, passenger transport services,
food and beverage serving services and goods, distribution margins, other services will
gain in the interval from 19 % to 26 %. Annex VII can be consulted for a list of the
additional spending per policy option for the Schengen area distributed on the tourism
sectors.
Direct, indirect and induced effects
The extra spending from travellers is equivalent to the direct economic impact of the
given policy option. To obtain the direct contribution to the Schengen area’s GDP, the
spending is deducted for costs of inputs in tourism supplier companies and imported
goods. The direct effect of travellers’ spending implies further indirect and induced
effects to GDP, therefore other final impacts and induced effects are taken into
account net of imported goods.
August 2013
103
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 29 shows the direct, indirect and induced effects of the six visa liberalisation and
facilitation scenarios for the Schengen area. Here direct effect is the tourism spending
in the directly affected sectors. Costs of inputs correspond to the tourism providers’
costs for inputs to provide their final product to the travellers, including imported
goods. Direct Contribution to GDP is the direct economic input to the Schengen area,
which is equivalent to the total spending less the purchases made by the tourism
sector, including imported goods. The supply chain effects are from direct purchases
of goods and services by the tourism sector. Induced effects are equivalent to the
broader contribution from employees directly and indirectly employed in the tourism
sector (for a more elaborate explanation see section 5.3.3).
104
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 29: Scenarios’ contribution to the Schengen GDP, "conservative" and
"probable" spending scenarios, year 1 (million EUR)
1. Visa
free
2. Online
Applicati
on
3. Less
documen
tary
requirem
ents
4. MEV
5.
Longer
Validity
6. On
Arrival
Direct effect*
3 745
2 636
2 284
3 014
2 742
2 772
11 297
7 965
6 873
8 860
8 193
8 267
conservative
-1 925
-1 354
-1 174
-1 549
-1 409
-1 424
probable
-5 806
-4 093
-3 532
-4 553
-4 210
-4 249
1 821
1 281
1 110
1 465
1 333
1 347
5 492
3 872
3 341
4 307
3 983
4 019
conservative
1 769
1 245
1 079
1 424
1 295
1 309
High
5 337
3 763
3 247
4 186
3 871
3 906
-343
-241
-209
-276
-251
-254
-1 035
-730
-630
-812
-751
-757
conservative
probable
Costs of inputs
Direct Contribution
GDP
conservative
probable
to
Supply chain effects
Imported goods from indirect spending
conservative
probable
Induced effects
conservative
probable
962
677
587
775
705
712
2 903
2 047
1 766
2 277
2 106
2 125
Indirect and Induced Contribution to GDP
conservative
2 389
1 681
1 457
1 922
1 749
1 768
probable
7 205
5 080
4 383
5 651
5 226
5 273
4 209
2 962
2 567
3 388
3 082
3 115
12 697
8 952
7 724
9 958
9 208
9 292
Total Contribution to
GDP
conservative
probable
Source: WTTC 2012 and own calculations
Note: Direct contribution to GDP is not the total of all Schengen countries, since the import proportion between Schengen
countries are disregard on the overall level. Indirect increased governmental spending and capital investment are ignored in
the framework.
Note "*": Direct effect is the tourism spending in the directly affected sectors
The "Visa-free" scenario will have a total contribution to GDP of between EUR 4 209
million and EUR 12 697 million for respectively the "conservative" and the "probable"
scenario.
For the other scenarios, "MEV" will yield the maximal impact and "Less documentary
requirements" will yield the minimal impact, of the given policy options. The direct
effect of tourism spending is in the range of EUR 2 284 million and EUR 3 014 million
for the "conservative" and in range of EUR 6 873 million and EUR 8 860 million for
the "probable" scenarios. A division of the impacts per tourism sector can be found in
August 2013
105
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Annex VII. The direct effect of tourism spending implies further supply chain effects in
the interval from EUR 1 079 million to EUR 1 424 million for the "conservative" and
in the interval from EUR 3 247 million to EUR 4 186 million for the "probable"
scenarios. A further induced effect from spending of employees in the tourism sector is
in the interval from EUR 587 million to EUR 775 million for the "conservative" and in
the interval from EUR 1 766 million to EUR 2 277 million for the "probable"
scenarios.
The total contribution to GDP for the remaining scenarios are thus in the range of EUR
2 567 million to EUR 3 388 million for the "conservative" spending scenario and in
the range of EUR 8 952 million to EUR 9 958 million for the "probable" spending
scenario.
Contribution to employment
Additional travellers’ spending in the Schengen area will generate jobs at hotels, travel
agents, passenger transportation services and activities in the food and beverages,
and other leisure industries that are directly supported by travellers. To illustrate the
effect of the added expenditure from travellers on employment, a ratio of the number
of persons employed in the tourism sector due to the direct and total contribution to
GDP are used as a proxy for the number of FTEE's to be gained (i.e. the same
approach as for the calculations presented in Table 25 is applied).
Table 30 shows the direct and total contribution to employment for the Schengen
area, under the given policy option divided on a "conservative" and a "probable"
spending scenario.
Table 30: Additional travellers' effect on employment, number of additional
FTEE's, per scenario, year 1
1. Visa
free
2. Online
Application
Direct contribution to Employment
37 443
conservative
3. Less
document
ary
requireme
nts
4. MEV
5. Longer
Validity
6. On
Arrival
26 351
22 834
30 136
27 416
27 710
79 631
68 713
88 585
81 913
82 659
Indirect and induced contribution to Employment
42 905
30 195
conservative
26 165
34 532
31 416
31 753
78 737
101 508
93 863
94 717
probable
probable
112 950
129 427
Total contribution to Employment
80 349
conservative
probable
242 377
91 248
56 546
48 998
64 668
58 832
59 463
170 879
147 449
190 094
175 776
177 376
Source: WTTC 2012 and own calculations
Note: 1 job is defined as the full time employment equivalent of the work/output of 1 employee over the timespan of 1
year.
The direct effect of the different policy options contributes to between 22 834 and
30 136 FTEE's in the "conservative" scenarios and between 68 713 and 88 585 in
the "probable" scenarios, when disregarding the "Visa free" scenario. The total effect
contributes in the range from 48 998 to 64 668 FTEE's in the "conservative"
scenarios and in the range from 147 449 to 190 094 FTEE's in the "probable"
scenarios, when exempting the "Visa free" scenario. Policy option 5 concerning
106
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
multiple-entry visas is the option that provides the largest contribution to employment
besides the "Visa free" scenario.
Dynamic effects
This section contains a qualitative assessment of how the competitiveness of the
Schengen zone is affected, and how market shares will be expected to develop as a
result of and beyond the anticipated direct effects due to a change in the current visa
practises.
Added expenditure from an increase in the number of travellers will have an effect on
the competitiveness of the tourism sector. Consequently, this will increase the level of
attractiveness of the different Schengen countries by adding to the growth of a
country's tourism sector. When there is a high demand for tourism services, there will
be a push in the supply of a more varied tourism sector due to developments and
investments induced from the extra travellers and the resulting larger tourism sector.
This can, potentially, lead to an indirect and induced increase in travellers from other
destinations besides the target countries of this study.
The added number of travellers, both current travellers returning to the Schengen
area and first time travellers, who come to the Schengen area due to an
implementation of any of the policy options, will only be a relatively small fraction of
the overall number of domestic and international travellers in the Schengen area.
The assessment of the dynamic effects is, therefore, also relatively conservative, when
assessing a further increase in the number of inbound travellers and a mitigation of
outbound travel from the Schengen area to internal travel. On the contrary, however,
due to more travellers to a certain destination, there is a perceived loss of exclusivity,
which might have a small counter-effect on the level of attractiveness to a certain
exclusive type of traveller.
5.4.3
Total impacts of facilitation measures compared with baseline
Table 31 summarises the three main points of interest with regard to the economic
impact assessment: number of travellers, direct spending in the “conservative” and
“probable” spending scenarios, and direct contribution to employment in the
“conservative” and “probable” spending scenarios. It is clear, that each of the
facilitation measures provides a substantial impact in comparison with the “do
nothing” scenario, the baseline. Each scenario therefore combines the figures from
section 5.4.2 with the figures from the baseline, to show how the scenario will affect
the total number of travellers, the total direct spending and the total direct
contribution to employment. The contribution to employment is defined as the
work/output of one full time employee over the time span of 1 year, the full time
employment equivalent (FTEE).
August 2013
107
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 31: Summary of impacts in year 1
Baseline
Number
of
travellers (in
1000)
9 310
3.
Less 4. MEV
document
1.
Visa 2.
Online
ary
free
Application
requireme
nts
15 907
5. Longer
Validity
6. On
Arrival
13 915
13 352
14 634
14 108
14 120
Direct spending in million EUR
conservative
probable
5 359
9 104
7 994
7 643
8 373
8 101
8 130
15 914
27 211
23 878
22 786
24 774
24 107
24 181
Direct contribution to employment (in no. of persons)
conservative
probable
53 578
91 021
79 929
76 412
83 714
80 994
81 288
159 108
272 058
238 739
227 820
247 693
241 021
241 767
Note: 1 job is defined as the full time employment equivalent (FTEE) of the work/output of 1 employee over the timespan
of 1 year.
Note: All figures for the scenarios include the figures from the baseline.
The Schengen area as a whole stands to gain a possible direct added value of between
EUR 7 643 and EUR 9 104 million in the "conservative" scenarios, and between EUR
22 786 and EUR 27 211 million in the "probable" scenarios, from increased traveller
expenditure. This has a direct contribution to employment between 76 412 and
91 021 FTEE's in the "conservative" scenario. For the "probable" scenario the
equivalent number of FTEE's is between 227 820 and 272 058 FTEE's.
In general, the extra number of travellers and the consequent additional expenditure
is likely to have a strong effect on the competitiveness of the tourism sector and the
attractiveness of the different Schengen countries, both to international travellers, but
also to domestic and internal Schengen travellers.
When a country's tourism sector is flourishing, and there is a high demand for
services, there will consequently be a push in the supply of a more varied tourism
sector. A more varied tourism sector can, potentially, lead to an indirect and induced
increase in travellers from other destinations, than the target countries.
The impacts of the different scenarios range between 4 million extra travellers in the
"Less documentary requirements" scenario and 6.6 million extra travellers in the "Visa
free" scenario. The extra travellers are, as already mentioned, a small fraction of the
current total number of travellers in and to the Schengen area. Therefore, the extra
travellers will only have a small impact on the more dynamic effects of the tourism
sector. As mentioned above, certain countries, such as Finland, Italy, and Spain, stand
to gain the most in terms of extra GDP growth and will thus experience a higher level
of dynamic effects.
From the impact assessment it is possible to deduct that – besides the implementation
of the Visa-free scenario – the wider use multiple-entry visas is the facilitation
measure, which has the highest potential impact.
Incorporating the forecasted growth rates for travel from the target countries to the
Schengen area into the model provides the total potential number of future travellers
under the given methodology. This is illustrated in Figure 57, which shows the
baseline compared with the six visa liberalisation and facilitation scenarios over a fiveyear period.
108
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 57: Development in no. of travellers, year 1-5 (in million persons)
18
17
16
Baseline
Million Travellers
15
Visa Free
14
Online Application
Less doc. Req.
13
MEV
Longer Validity
12
On Arrival
11
10
9
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Note: the “Longer validity” scenario is hidden under the “On arrival” scenario, as they are very close.
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 15.
Note: All figures for the scenarios include the figures from the baseline.
Figure 57 shows that the maximum potential number of travellers will further increase
with a little above 1 million travellers over a five year period for the baseline scenario.
For the extra travellers added through the facilitation scenarios, the cumulative
increase ranges from 70.5 million extra travellers in the "Less documentary
requirements" scenario to 83.9 million extra travellers in the "Visa free" scenario, for a
five-year period. The "MEV" scenario has the second highest increase with 77.2 million
extra travellers over the five-year period. The cumulative figures are summarized in
Table 32.
Table 32: Cumulative (years 1-5) increase in travellers for each scenario (in
1 000 persons)
Baseline
Cumulative
increase
49 132
1. Visa
Free
83 935
2. Online
Application
3. Less
documentary
requirements
73 427
70 453
4. MEV
77 189
5.
Longer
Validity
74 441
6. On
Arrival
74 492
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 15.
Note: All figures for the scenarios include the figures from the baseline.
This development naturally has an effect on the overall outcome of the economic
impact due to increased spending. Figure 58 presents the effect from the six
facilitation scenarios and the baseline on direct spending taken over the five-year
period for the conservative spending scenarios.
August 2013
109
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 58: Direct spending (conservative spending scenarios), years 1-5
(billion EUR)
11
10
Baseline
Billion EUR
9
1. Visa Free
2. Online Application
8
3. Less doc. Req.
4. MEV
7
5. Longer Validity
6. On Arrival
6
5
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 15.
Note: All figures for the scenarios include the figures from the baseline.
When comparing the conservative average spending scenarios, the lowest direct
spending increase occurs in the "Less doc. req." scenario with an increase from 7,6
billion EUR to 8,6 billion EUR, over the five-year period. The highest direct spending
increase occurs in the "Visa free" scenario with an increase from 9,1 billion EUR to
10,2 billion, over the five-year period. This represents an increase of 12 % in direct
spending over the five years.
Figure 59 presents the effect of the six facilitation scenarios and the baseline on direct
spending taken over the five-year period for the “probable” spending scenarios.
Figure 59: Direct spending (“probable” spending scenarios), years 1-5
(billion EUR)
31
29
Baseline
27
Billion EUR
1. Visa Free
25
2. Online Application
3. Less doc. Req.
23
4. MEV
21
5. Longer Validity
19
6. On Arrival
17
15
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 15.
Note: All figures for the scenarios include the figures from the baseline.
110
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
In the “probable” average spending scenario, the highest direct spending increase
occurs in the "Visa free" scenario with an increase from 27,2 billion EUR to 31,1 billion
EUR, over the five-year period. The lowest direct spending increase occurs in the "Less
doc. req." scenario with an increase from 22,8 billion EUR to 26,0 billion, over the fiveyear period. Due to the higher average spending, the increase in per cent over the
five-year period represents 14 %.
It is apparent that there is a significant potential gain in direct spending due to the
general growth in the number of travellers from the six target countries. This is
summarized in Table 33.
Table 33: Cumulative (years 1-5) direct spending effect (million EUR)
Baseline
1. Visa
Free
2. Online
Applicatio
n
”conservative”
29 069
48 262
42 380
3. Less
documentar
y
requirement
s
40 513
“probable”
85 111
145 49
1
127 671
121 827
4. MEV
5.
Longer
Validity
6. On
Arrival
44 362
42 938
43 083
132 38
0
128 87
8
129 23
1
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 15.
Note: All figures for the scenarios include the figures from the baseline.
Similarly this growth in the number of travellers and direct spending will have an
impact on the direct contribution to employment for the Schengen area. Figure 60
summarizes the growth in the direct contribution to employment for the six visa
facilitation scenarios and the "conservative" average spending scenario.
Figure 60: Contribution to employment (conservative spending scenario),
years 1-5 (in 1 000 FTEE's)
100
Employment (1 000)
90
Baseline
1. Visa Free
80
2. Online Application
3. Less doc. Req.
4. MEV
70
5. Longer Validity
6. On Arrival
60
50
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 15.
Like the direct spending, the contribution to employment shows the same pattern in
terms of smallest and largest impact from the six different facilitation scenarios: the
"Less documentary requirements" scenario provides the smallest cumulative increase
in both the “conservative” and the “probable” scenarios, where the "Visa free"
scenario provides the largest cumulative increase. The cumulative increase in the
August 2013
111
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
"conservative" average spending scenario ranges from 0,4 million FTEE's to 0,5 million
FTEE's over the five-year period.
Figure 61 summarizes the growth in the direct contribution to employment for the six
visa facilitation scenarios and the "probable" average spending scenario.
Figure 61: Contribution to employment (“probable” spending scenario), years
1-5 (in 1 000 FTEE's)
310
Employment (1 000)
290
270
Baseline
250
1. Visa Free
2. Online Application
230
3. Less doc. Req.
4. MEV
210
5. Longer Validity
190
6. On Arrival
170
150
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 15.
In the "probable" average spending scenario, the cumulative contribution to
employment ranges from 1,2 million to 1,5 million FTEE's in the six scenarios over the
five-year period. In both the "conservative" and the "probable" average spending
scenarios, the net increase represents a 14 % increase from year 1 to year 5. This is
summarised in Table 34.
Table 34: Cumulative (year 1-5) contribution to employment (in FTEE's)
Baseline
conservative
284 055
probable
850 941
1. Visa
Free
2. Online
Application
482 517
423 716
1 454 628
1 276 468
3. Less
documentary
requirements
4. MEV
5. Longer
Validity
6. On
Arrival
405 045
443 533
429 305
430 760
1 218 038
1 323 538
1 288 529
1 292 074
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 15.
Note: 1 job is defined as the full time employment equivalent (FTEE) of the work/output of 1 employee over the timespan
of 1 year.
Note: All figures for the scenarios include the figures from the baseline.
For a year-by-year assessment of the development of FTEE's, see Annex X:
Contribution to employment figures.
By introducing the growth factors to the economic impact model, it is clear to see that
the development of travellers linked to the potential visa facilitation measures has a
profound effect on the Schengen economies.
112
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
5.4.4
Combined facilitation scenario
In the following section, a seventh scenario is introduced, which looks at the possible
combined effect from an implementation of the following three visa facilitation
practices simultaneously: a) "Online Application", b) "Less documentary requirements"
and c) "Longer validity". It would not make sense to include the “visa free” and “on
arrival” scenarios in a combination policy option, as these two scenarios would
completely eliminate the need to lodge an application with the embassy. In a similar
fashion, the advantage of the “MEV” scenario is that, once the MEV has been issued,
visa applications would not need to be made for subsequent entries to the Schengen
area. Thus, in considering simultaneous implementation of several options, it makes
most sense to look at the three remaining scenarios together.
In addition, the economic impact assessment of the six target countries will be
discussed in relation to the proportion of this study's sample size to the entire visa
programme for the Schengen area.
A combination scenario
An implementation of the policy option “Combi” is based on the behavioural effects
resulting from an implementation of the three policy options: "Online Application",
"Less documentary requirements" and “Longer validity”, however the three original
scenarios are individual and cannot be directly added together. Therefore the effect on
extra current travels and additional first-time travellers are determined from the
travellers-survey, and the share of respondents that would travel “a lot” more, if one
or more of these three policy options are implemented. The rationale behind
implementing these three factors together is that it might result in a higher combined
effect than the scenarios would separately.
As can be seen from the economic impact assessment for year 1 of the baseline
scenario, the three separate policy options and the "Combi" scenario (summarised in
Table 35), there is a large difference in the number of travellers in the five scenarios,
and hence a large difference in the direct spending and the total contribution to
employment. Moreover, by comparing the “conservative” average spending scenario
to the “probable” average spending scenario, it is clear that there is a significant
difference in the economic impact, and hence the potential, from implementing a
combination of visa facilitation measures for the six target countries.
Table 35: Economic impact assessment of the "Combi" scenario compared to
baseline and the individual policy options, year 1
Number of
travellers in
thousands
Baseline
Online Application
Less documentary
requirements
Longer Validity
“Combi”
Direct spending in million
EUR
Direct contribution to
employment
conservative
probable
conservative
probable
9 310
5 359
15 914
53 578
159 108
13 915
7 994
23 878
79 929
238 739
13 352
7 643
22 786
76 412
227 820
14 108
8 101
24 107
80 994
241 021
15 146
8 693
25 936
86 914
259 306
Source: DG Home Visa Statistics, WTTC 2012, and own calculations
Note: 1 job is defined as the full time employment equivalent (FTEE) of the work/output of 1 employee over the timespan
of 1 year.
Note: All figures for the scenarios include the figures from the baseline.
The "Combi" scenario will have a large effect on the number of travellers compared
with the baseline and the three separate policy options. This also results in higher
figures for direct spending and direct contribution to employment. In the baseline
August 2013
113
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
approximately 9.3 million travellers visit the Schengen area and the equivalent
number of travellers when implementing the "Combi" scenario is 15.1 million.
Table 36 shows the annual and cumulative potential direct spending from the baseline
and "Combi" scenarios over a five-year period.
Table 36: Potential direct spending, "Combi" scenario compared with
baseline, year 1-5 (in million EUR)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Cumulative
Baseline
conservative
probable
5 359
5 515
5 677
5 844
6 017
28 411
15 914
16 447
17 000
17 576
18 174
85 110
“Combi”
conservative
probable
8 693
8 946
9 207
9 478
9 758
46 082
25 936
26 800
27 698
28 632
29 602
138 668
Source: WTTC 2012, own calculations
Note: The policy option is the potential direct spending, i.e. the combined direct spending of the current travellers and the
additional travellers due to a change in visa facilitation.
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 15.
Note: All figures for the scenarios include the figures from the baseline.
Table 36 shows that the cumulative potential direct spending for the "Combi" scenario
will be respectively EUR 46 billion and EUR 139 Billion for the "conservative" and the
"probable" average spending scenarios compared to EUR 28 billion and EUR 85 billion
in the baseline.
Similarly, this growth in the number of travellers and direct spending will have an
impact on the direct contribution to employment for the Schengen area. Table 37
summarizes the growth in the direct contribution to employment for the baseline and
the "Combi" scenarios for the "conservative" and the "probable" average spending
scenarios.
Table 37: Direct contribution to employment, "Combi" scenario compared
with baseline, number of FTEE's, year 1-5
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Baseline
conservative
probable
53 578
55 139
56 755
58 426
60 156
159 108
164 435
169 970
175 724
181 705
Combi
conservative
probable
86 914
89 441
92 055
94 759
97 558
259 305
267 950
276 931
286 264
295 963
Source: WTTC 2012 and own calculations
Note: The policy option is the potential direct spending, i.e. the combined direct spending of the current travellers and the
additional travellers due to a change in visa facilitation.
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 15.
Note: 1 job is defined as the full time employment equivalent (FTEE) of the work/output of 1 employee over the timespan
of 1 year.
Note: All figures for the scenarios include the figures from the baseline.
Table 37 shows that the direct contribution to employment for the "Combi" scenario
will have cumulative effect of 535 473 FTEE's over the five year scenario in the
"probable" scenario and 176 672 in the conservative scenario, when the baseline is
subtracted.
114
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 38 shows the development in number of travellers over a five-year period, for
the baseline, with an implementation of the "Combi" scenario and for an
implementation of the three individual policy options ("Online Application", "Less
documentary requirements" and "Longer validity") separately.
Table 38: Potential increase in number of travellers, "Combi" scenario
compared with baseline and individual policy options, year 1-5 (in 1 000
travellers)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
9 310
9 560
9 818
10 084
10 359
Cumulative
number of
travellers
49 132
Online
Less
documentary
requirements
Longer Validity
13 915
14 288
14 673
15 070
15 480
73 426
13 352
13 710
14 079
14 459
14 852
70 452
14 108
14 486
14 876
15 277
15 693
74 440
Combi
15 146
15 552
15 971
16 403
16 849
79 922
Baseline
Source: DG Home visa statistics, own calculations
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 15.
Table 38 thus shows that the “combi” scenario has a cumulative increase of 79.9
million travellers over the five-year period, which is approximately 30 million more
than in the baseline scenario and approximately 5 million more than the best
alternative of the individual options (the “Longer validity” scenario).
Figure 62 shows the number of travellers in the baseline scenario and the additional
number of travellers for the three specific policy options and the “combi” scenario, in
year 1.
Figure 62: Number of travellers, “combi” scenario compared with baseline
and individual policy options, year 1 (in million travellers)
16
14
12
Million
10
8
6
4
2
0
Online Application
Less doc. Req.
Baseline
August 2013
Longer Validity
Combi
Additional travellers
115
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Figure 62 shows that the "Combi" scenario will yield approximately 1 million additional
travellers in year 1 compared to the second best policy option "Longer Validity".
In conclusion there is a significant difference and potential in the economic impact and
resulting contribution to employment, from a potential combined implementation of
the three visa facilitation measures together in the six target countries, in comparison
with an implementation of only one of the visa facilitation measures.
Relative size of the six target countries to the entire visa population
According to the visa statistics from DG Home from 2012, which is the basis for the
calculation of number of travellers for this study, the total number of issued visas to
travellers from the six target countries amount to 9.3 million visas or 65 % of the
total amount of visas issued for the Schengen area in 2012. When considering the full
potential economic impact of visa facilitation for, not only the six target countries but
all countries for which Schengen visas are required, it is therefore important to put the
remaining 35 % visa travellers’ potential into perspective.
Table 39 illustrates the top 10 countries in terms of visa-travels to the Schengen area,
where the country of origin and the amount of visa travellers is listed, and the
percentage of visa travellers from the country in relation to the total (14.3 million) is
shown to the right. Russia is by far the largest of all countries with 42 % of the total
amount of visa travellers. Ukraine and China follow as the second and third largest
visa travellers with 9 % and 8 % respectively. In general it can be seen, that the top
5 visa travelling countries represent 79 % of the total amount of visa travellers. It is
therefore within these countries that the largest potential can be expected to be found
by visa facilitation .
68
Table 39: Top 10 visa travellers (in 2012)
Country of origin
Amount of visa travellers in million
Percentage of total
Russia
5.9
42
Ukraine
1.3
9
China
1.2
8
Belarus
0.7
5
Turkey
0.6
4
India
0.5
Morocco
0.3
Algeria
0.3
Saudi Arabia
0.2
Thailand
0.2
2
1
11.2
79
Total
3
2
2
Source: DG Home Visa Statistics
It is thus apparent that implementing visa facilitation measures stand to have the
most significant impact on travellers from the six target countries selected for this
study (and perhaps one or two more), as these comprise by far the largest proportion
of all visa travellers to the Schengen area.
68
By including the top 20 visa travelling countries the percentage of the total amounts to 89 %. There is
therefore a very limited increase per country included when discussing potential impact on visa facilitation.
South Africa, which is included in this study, represents 1.3 % of the total amount of travellers, and is the
12th most travelling visa country.
116
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
If however, visa facilitation measures are applied to all countries, a rough calculation
can be made of the potential impact from the remaining 35 % of visa travellers to the
Schengen area. It is important to note that it is unknown how the spending patterns of
visitors from the remaining countries are. A report by WTTC indicated that world-wide
travel to the G20 countries saw an average spending of 1 419 EUR per traveller,
which could be assumed to apply to the remaining 35 % of visa travellers.
Combining these two figures into an illustrative example, and applying a conservative
10 % increase in extra travellers due to visa facilitation, the remaining 35 % of visa
travellers could potentially provide an annual added direct spending of approximately
EUR 690 million.
5.5
Cost-benefit analysis
In this chapter a cost benefit analysis (henceforth CBA) is carried out to complement
the economic impact assessment. The CBA will build on the results of the economic
impact assessment by comparing the established direct effects of the different
facilitation scenarios with the estimated costs derived from potential implementation
of these options, i.e. the cost per visa and the visa fees. The CBA is presented on an
overall level following a micro-economic approach, which means that it will not take
into account and calculation the indirect effects, job creation or division on sectors and
member states that the economic impact assessment included. The CBA focuses on
the costs and benefits of the direct effects.
The baseline scenario for the cost-benefit analysis is the do-nothing scenario (status
quo), where visa procedures remain the same. A growth factor is implemented for all
travellers, so both the number of current travellers as well as the number of additional
travellers is expected to increase over the lifetime of the CBA.
The CBA will examine the costs and benefits of the following four policy options for
visa facilitation:
1. Possibility for online application ("Online Application"),
2. Less administrative/documentary requirements ("Less documentary
requirements"),
3. Wider use of MEVs ("MEV"),
4. Longer validity of visas ("Longer Validity").
The two extreme policy options ("Visa free entry" and "Visa on arrival") are not
included in the CBA since neither of these options are considered feasible (in the near
future). These two scenarios were included in the economic impact assessment mainly
for comparison purposes.
In the following sections, the CBA for the four selected visa facilitation scenarios will
be presented. First, the general methodology and different prerequisites for the CBA
will be outlined. Secondly, the cost side of the CBA will be presented, followed by a
presentation of the benefit side. The fourth part will present the annual costs and
benefits over the life time of the project, and the fifth part will compare the
costs and benefits (cost-benefit analysis) of the different scenarios to conclude on
the CBA. Finally, in the sixth part, a sensitivity analysis on the most critical
variables will be carried out. A sensitivity analysis is important to test the robustness
of the result, i.e. these analyses are conducted to test the validity of the results. (For
a discussion or elaboration of the different scenarios see section 5.4.
August 2013
117
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
5.5.1
Methodology and prerequisites
A cost benefit analysis (CBA) uses a standard and relatively straightforward
methodology in order to assist decision making and determine the project’s net impact
on economic welfare. In conducting this CBA, the recommendations in the European
Commission's guide to cost benefit analysis is followed .
69
The CBA will evaluate whether the four policy options are desirable from a socioeconomic point of view through the results of the analysis and whether the net
present value (NPV) is positive. The NPV is a measure for the sum of the discounted
total social benefits and costs, i.e. a calculation of the value at present of the costs
and benefits to be wreaked in the future (over the life time of the project). Thus, if the
specific policy option implies a positive net present value, the project will increase
social welfare. The NPV is therefore the main indicator for whether a project should be
implemented or not and for comparing the eligibility of the different scenarios, by
comparing the size of calculated NPVs.
Another evaluation tool is the Benefit Cost ratio (B/C), which yield the ratio
between the discounted benefits and costs of implementing the policy option. A ratio
of 1 implies that the project returns the investment with 1 EUR per EUR invested. A
ratio above one implies that the project returns more than 1 EUR per EUR invested,
whereas a ratio below 1 implies that the project returns less than 1 EUR per EUR
invested and that the project is unprofitable.
When evaluating the specific policy option, and interpreting the results, as well as the
NPV and the B/C, it is important that all the non-monetized benefits and costs, which
is not included in the CBA, are kept in mind.
The CBA takes into account the different costs and benefits related to the
Schengen area and its member states. It is therefore only the economic value that is
either injected (benefits) into the Schengen area, or removed (costs) from the
Schengen area which are analysed in the cost-benefit analysis. Direct costs related to
visa applicants, such as paying the visa fee, travel costs to visit consulates, etc. are
therefore disregarded in the cost-benefit analysis. The visa fee will, however, appear
as a benefit to the overall economy in the cost-benefit analysis, as it is an injection of
money to the Schengen Member States.
Furthermore, only the direct contribution of the potential extra travellers to the
GDP (by virtue of the increased spending less cost of inputs) is taken into account in
the cost-benefit analysis. Indirect or induced effects, as well as effects on the labour
market are disregarded in this context. This means that the CBA also disregards the
effects of and on externalities, such as increased congestion, pollution and other
induced effects of a higher number of travellers to the Schengen area. These effects
are normally not considered in a CBA, due to the uncertainty involved in estimating
the effects. Therefore, this study employs a more conservative approach to obtain the
most reliable results.
This is done in order to illustrate and compare the direct effects of the different
facilitation measures, rather than undertake a large scale socio-economic analysis of
all the different parameters that might be affected by an increase in the number of
travellers to the Schengen area.
69
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/cost/guide2008_en.pdf
118
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Assumptions
The CBA follows the recommendations in the European Commission's guide to costbenefit analysis. The assumptions of the cost-benefit analysis are listed in Table 40.
Table 40: Assumptions
Life time of the cost-benefit analysis
Price level year
Social discount rate
Marginal Cost of Public Funds
Level
5 years
2012
4.5 %
1.0
Note: The social discount rate for Schengen is chosen on the basis of a simple average of the European Commissions
proposed social discount rate of 5.5 % for the Cohesion countries, and 3.5 % for the others.
Source: Guide to Cost Benefit analysis of investment projects, 2008, WTTC 2012
The CBA is set to have an estimated life time of five years with a base year in year 1.
This is in keeping with the WTTC which has previously used a life time of five years for
economic analyses of visa facilitation. The life time of the project will not have an
effect on the reliability and direction of the results. The CBA is estimated over the
lifetime of the project to show the full impact of the relevant costs and benefits.
Due to the publication dates of the different studies and prices used in both the
economic impact and the cost-benefit analysis, the price level is kept at a 2012 level.
The economic net present value and other indicators are thus determined in the
beginning of 2014, at a 2012 price level.
According to the European Commission, the social discount rate for projects of this
nature is 5.5 % for cohesion countries, and 3.5 % for non-cohesion countries. As this
CBA focuses on the entire Schengen region, a simple average of these two social
discount rates is used, providing a social discount rate of 4.5 % The social discount
rate is used to compare cost and benefits taking place at different times, e.g. cost
occurring in the future with benefits occurring today. The social discount rate thus
reflects the social view of how future benefits and cost should be valued against
present cost and benefits. In the sensitivity analysis, a further analysis is conducted
using respectively the proposed rate for the cohesion countries and the proposed rate
for the other countries.
The marginal cost of public funds (MCPF) is used to handle
income in the public sector might be worth more or less than
private sector.70 The MCPF weighs the monetary factor of
relation to the value created for society. In this CBA, the MCPF
the fact that a euro in
a euro in income in the
the economic input in
is assumed to be 1.
In order to provide a reliable assessment of the costs and benefits of the different visa
facilitation initiatives, all other macro-economic factors are assumed to be constant.
The number of travellers to the Schengen area from the six target countries is
expected to change over the lifetime of the CBA, and the same growth factor as used
in the economic impact assessment for each target country is implemented. This is in
done to capture the development in the number of travellers to the Schengen area.
70
In essence the MCPF expresses that there are cost associated with taxation, due to distortions to the
economy. The MCPF is usually available on Member State level, however in this study, the MCPF is assumed
to be one, as a direct consequence of the CBA being conducted for the Schengen area. This is based on the
current guidelines of the European Commission, which recommends using a MCPF = 1 as a default rule
when no guidelines on the MCPF exist.
August 2013
119
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 41 lists the growth factors for each target country. For a further discussion of
the growth factor see section 5.3.1 in the economic impact assessment.
Table 41: Growth factor
Rate
China
5.0 %
India
5.0 %
Russia
2.1 %
Saudi Arabia
3.0 %
South Africa
4.5 %
Ukraine
2.1 %
Weighted Average
2.7 %
Source: For all the target countries a growth rate for international tourism by region of origin to advanced economies are
used.
5.5.2
Costs
Table 42 presents the economic costs per year related to an increased growth in
tourism to the Schengen area, due to a change in visa facilitation (same for all four
scenarios).
The GHK study for an impact assessment of the Schengen Visa Code assessed the cost
for consulates of processing visas. These different costs for consulates where weighed
according to the number of visas processed per consulate to obtain an estimated
consulate cost per processed visa. The direct costs of inputs for the tourism industry
are obtained using the WTTC 2012 data on each Member State’s distribution on direct
and indirect effects of traveller spending (see 5.3.3 for an elaborated description).
Table 42: Costs from revised visa facilitation (all scenarios)
Consulate costs per visa processed (euro)
49
51 %
Costs of inputs
Source: GHK, WTTC 2012, and own calculations
The cost of inputs is related to the costs for tourism providers due to spending by
travellers in the tourism sectors (goods, and secondary services, etc.). This includes
imported goods from outside the Schengen area, wherefore the cost of inputs does not
contribute to the direct economic growth potential of the visa facilitation measures.
Hence when taking the additional traveller spending less this direct cost of inputs for
the tourism industries, it yields the direct contribution to GDP as shown in the impact
assessment.
The economic impact analysis did not take the fact that there are some direct
economic costs related to the visa facilitation resulting from the extra cost associated
with processing the extra visas for the increased number of travellers into account.
These direct costs are, however, included in the CBA and estimated at 49 euro per
visa. This is a weighted average of the different Schengen Member States’ reported
costs for processing visa applications .
71
It is entirely possible that a change in visa facilitation practises can provide either
higher or lower costs to the consulates. However, the effect is hard to quantify since it
71
GHK, 2013 (forthcoming)
120
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
depends on how the practice is implemented. It is thus possible that the cost of
consulates per visa processed may change (most likely be reduced) with the
implementation of one (or more) of the potential new practices for visa facilitation.
Moreover, some implementation costs are to be expected, however these are even
more dependent on the specificities of the options and their implementation and thus
not possible to establish at this point. It is assumed that the implementation costs are
to some extent offset by reduced costs for processing visa applications; however, all
facilitation scenarios will still imply some administrative costs for consulates in issuing
visas.
The largest change (reduction) in cost due to a change in visa facilitation might be
experienced by the visa applicants. These costs are however not included in the CBA
or economic impact assessment since they are benefits occurring outside the
Schengen area (without any direct effect on the Schengen economy). The effect will
almost certainly also differ for the individual consulates, since the marginal cost of an
additional visa is in part determined by the current capacity and member state. The
result of the CBA thus might provide either an underestimation or an overestimation of
the costs for certain Member States, depending on the specific visa facilitation option.
The use of a weighted average for the visa processing costs and the sensitivity
analysis at the end of the CBA are the best means for adjusting for these
uncertainties.
5.5.3
Benefits
The economic impact analysis, in section 0, provided a thorough analysis of the direct
economic impact in terms of the added value to the Schengen economies of the
potential extra travellers to be gained from visa facilitation. The impact analysis did,
however, not consider the added economic benefit from the extra visa fees that result
from the extra visa applications. In the CBA, this factor will be added to the value
from travellers’ increased spending in assessing the benefits of visa facilitation.
Table 43 shows the economic benefits in terms of increased spending due to a change
in visa facilitation, i.e. the same numbers as those employed in the economic impact
analysis.
Table 43: Spending per additional number of travellers, (in euros)
Conservative
Probable
China
809
3 689
India
768
3 674
Russia
581
1 301
Saudi Arabia
885
4 371
South Africa
758
2 675
177
395
Average spending per trip
Ukraine
Source: WTTC 2012, UNWTO 2012, VisitDenmark 2012 , http://atlas.marcasrenombradas.com/articulo/spain-as-aninternational-tourist-destination/?lang=en, and own calculations
72
Average spending is divided in a "conservative" and "probable" scenario. Additional
spending by travellers is highest for travellers from China and Saudi Arabia with
respectively an average spending per trip in the range from EUR 809 to EUR 885 for
the "conservative" scenario and in the range from EUR 3 689 to EUR 4 371 for the
72
Available at: http://www.visitdenmark.dk/sites/default/files/vdk_images/PDF-and-otherfiles/Analyser/2013/turismens_oekonomiske_betydning_i_danmark_2011_revideret_udgave.pdf
August 2013
121
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
"probable" scenario. Travellers from Ukraine are spending the lowest amount per trip.
A Ukrainian traveller's average spending per trip is around EUR 177 for the
"conservative" scenario and EUR 395 for the "probable" scenario. For an elaboration of
the spending patterns and the "conservative" and "probable" spending scenario see
section 5.3.3 in the impact model.
Table 44 shows the economic benefits per visa issued from additional visa fees related
to an increased growth in tourism to the Schengen area due to a change in visa
facilitation.
Table 44: Visa fee, (in euros)
Visa fee (Russia, Ukraine)
35
Visa fee (Other)
60
Source: Visa Code
For the Russian and Ukrainian nationalities, the visa fee is 35 euro (due to special visa
facilitation agreements with the Schengen area), whereas the other nationalities have
a visa fee of 60 euro. When comparing the visa fees to the visa costs (EUR 49 per visa
issued; weighted average), illustrated in the section above, it can be seen that the
costs are covered for all nationalities, apart from the Russian and Ukrainian visa
applications, due to their reduced visa application fee. It is however likely that the
consulates’ costs for issuing visas to Russians and Ukrainians are also lower due to
already established visa facilitation practices.
5.5.4
Costs and benefits over the project life time
In the above sections (5.5.2 and 5.5.3), the costs and benefits per trip were
introduced. To be able to calculate the total costs and benefits of the visa facilitation
scenarios, over the project life time (i.e. the five-year time horizon), these figures
have to be combined with calculations on the extra travellers to be gained from the
visa facilitation scenarios, assessed in the economic impact analysis and outlined
below in Table 45.
Table 45: Travellers in 1 000
Baseline
Baseline and Online
Baseline and Less
documentary
requirements
Baseline and MEV
Baseline and longer
validity
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
9 310
9 560
9 818
10 084
10 359
13 915
14 288
14 673
15 071
15 481
13 352
13 710
14 079
14 460
14 852
14 634
15 024
15 425
15 840
16 267
14 108
14 486
14 876
15 278
15 693
Note: taken from the economic impact analysis of this study
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 41.
The number of travellers “gained” from the six target markets to the Schengen area
will be highest for the "MEV" facilitation scenario. However, for this specific option the
data input for costs (consulate processing costs) and benefits (visa fees) outlined
above cannot be directly multiplied with the number of travellers. This because an
MEV will result in additional trips on one visa – i.e. the subsequent trips will not induce
extra visa processing. This will lower the assessed value of collected fees and visa
122
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
costs for this option. In the study for an impact assessment on the Visa Code, the
estimated proportionate reduction in visas applied for due to a wider application of
MEVs has been assessed. This behavioural change has been estimated under the
assumption that an MEV, with a validity of one year, is granted after two regular visa
trips in one year and that after two MEVs, with a validity of one year, an MEV with a
validity of three years is issued to the traveller . On this basis, the following reduction
rate is applied to the calculation.
73
Table 46: Visas issued as MEVs
Reduction in Visa application
33.9 %
Source: GHK, 2013Note: Intermediate scenario (Proposal C.1.2)
The estimated proportion of all trips that would require visas to be issued will decrease
by 33.9 %. This implies that the total level of visa applications (baseline + "MEV") are
decreased with this factor before multiplying with the cost per visa/fee per visa and
subtracting the total sum of visa costs/visa fees from the baseline scenario. The total
number of travellers shown in Table 45 will remain the same and only the number of
applications will decrease.
The following section will introduce the cash flows in terms of costs and benefits over
a five-year period for the four specific visa facilitation measures. Each facilitation
measure will be presented separately in detail, and will in the end be combined to
show the total benefits and costs for all scenarios.
Table 47 presents the additional cost and benefits for implementation of the facilitation
scenario "Online application" for the "conservative" and "probable" spending scenarios.
73
GHK, 2013
August 2013
123
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 47: Online application - Cash flow, "conservative" and "probable"
spending scenario (million EUR)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
188
194
200
206
212
2 636
2 712
2 791
2 873
2 957
7 965
8 228
8 502
8 786
9 081
Conservative
2 824
2 906
2 991
3 078
3 169
Probable
8 153
8 422
8 701
8 991
9 293
-224
-230
-237
-243
-250
Conservative
-1 354
-1 394
-1 434
-1 476
-1 520
Probable
-4 093
-4 228
-4 369
-4 515
-4 667
Conservative
-1 579
-1 624
-1 671
-1 719
-1 769
Probable
-4 317
-4 459
-4 605
-4 758
-4 916
1 245
1 282
1 320
1 359
1 400
3 836
3 963
4 096
4 233
4 376
Benefits
From additional Visa fees
Increased spending by
extra travellers
Conservative
Probable
Total benefits
Costs
Consulate costs
Purchases incl. imports
Total costs
Total (benefits –
costs)
Conservative
Probable
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 41.
Table 47 shows that the total benefits less the total costs are positive for both a
"conservative" and a "probable" spending scenario. Furthermore, it can be seen that
the gains from implementing the policy option are increasing over time. The total cost
and benefits in the "conservative" spending scenario increase from 1 245 million EUR
in year 1 to EUR 1 400 million EUR in year 5, an increase of 12 %, whereas the
"probable" spending scenario increases by 14 % from EUR 3 836 million to EUR 4 376
million over the five year period.
It is important to note that the only the increased spending by travellers and the
purchases incl. imports are affected by the "conservative" and "probable" spending
scenarios. The additional visa fees and the consulate costs are only affected by the
number of travellers who enter the Schengen area and not influenced by their
spending during the trip.
Table 48 presents the additional cost and benefits for implementation of the facilitation
scenario "Less documentary requirements" for the "conservative" and "probable"
spending scenarios.
124
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 48: Less documentary requirements - Cash flow, "conservative" and
"probable" spending scenario (million EUR)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
165
169
174
180
185
Conservative
2 284
2 350
2 418
2 488
2 561
Probable
6 873
7 099
7 334
7 579
7 832
Conservative
2 448
2 519
2 592
2 668
2 746
Probable
7 037
7 269
7 509
7 758
8 017
-197
-202
-208
-213
-219
Conservative
-1 174
-1 208
-1 243
-1 279
-1 316
Probable
-3 532
-3 648
-3 769
-3 895
-4 025
Conservative
-1 371
-1 410
-1 450
-1 492
-1 535
Probable
-3 729
-3 850
-3 977
-4 108
-4 244
Conservative
1 078
1 109
1 142
1 176
1 211
Probable
3 309
3 418
3 532
3 650
3 773
Benefits
From additional visa fees
Increased spending by extra travellers
Total benefits
Costs
Consulate costs
Purchases incl. imports
Total costs
Total (benefits – costs)
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 41.
Table 48 shows that the total benefits minus the total costs for the "Less documentary
requirements" facilitation scenario are positive for both the "conservative" and the
"probable" spending scenario. Over the five year period, the "conservative" spending
scenario increases from EUR 1 078 million to EUR 1 211 million, where the "probable"
spending scenario increases from EUR 3 309 million to EUR 3 773 million. As in the
"Online application" facilitation scenario, the “conservative” spending scenario has an
increase of 12 % over the five year period, whereas the “probable” spending scenario
has an increase of 14 %.
Table 49 presents the additional costs and benefits for implementation of the policy
option "MEV" for the "conservative" and "probable" spending scenarios.
August 2013
125
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 49: MEV - Cash flow, "conservative" and "probable" spending scenario
(million EUR)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
13
14
14
14
14
Conservative
3 014
3 099
3 187
3 278
3 372
Probable
8 860
9 146
9 443
9 750
10 070
Conservative
3 028
3 113
3 201
3 292
3 387
Probable
8 874
9 160
9 456
9 764
10 084
-18
-18
-18
-19
-19
Conservative
-1 549
-1 593
-1 638
-1 685
-1 733
Probable
-4 553
-4 700
-4 852
-5 011
-5 175
Conservative
-1 567
-1 611
-1 656
-1 703
-1 752
Probable
-4 571
-4 718
-4 871
-5 029
-5 194
Conservative
1 461
1 502
1 545
1 589
1 635
Probable
4 303
4 442
4 586
4 735
4 890
Benefits
From additional visa fees
Increased spending by extra travellers
Total benefits
Costs
Consulate costs
Purchases incl. imports
Total costs
Total (benefits – costs)
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 41.
Table 49 shows that, like the previous facilitation measures, the total benefits less
total costs are positive for both the "conservative" and the "probable" spending
scenario. The "MEV" facilitation measure implies that a large proportion (34 %) of the
total visa applications are reduced, which is why both the gains and costs of additional
visa application are very low in comparison to the other policy options, since the total
number of applications only will increase slightly from the increase in travellers, due to
a wider use of MEVs. The "conservative" spending scenario therefore increases from
EUR 1 461 to EUR 1 635 million or 12 % over the five year period, where the
"probable" spending scenario increases from EUR 4 303 million to EUR 4 890 million,
or 14 %.
Table 50 presents the additional costs and benefits for implementation of the policy
option "Longer validity" for the "conservative" and "probable" spending scenarios.
126
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 50: Longer validity - Cash flow, "conservative" and "probable"
spending scenario (million EUR)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
195
201
207
213
219
Conservative
2 742
2 821
2 903
2 987
3 075
Probable
8 193
8 463
8 743
9 033
9 336
Conservative
2 937
3 022
3 109
3 200
3 294
Probable
8 388
8 663
8 949
9 246
9 555
-234
-240
-246
-253
-260
Conservative
-1 409
-1 450
-1 492
-1 535
-1 580
Probable
-4 210
-4 349
-4 493
-4 642
-4 797
Conservative
-1 643
-1 690
-1 738
-1 788
-1 840
Probable
-4 444
-4 589
-4 739
-4 895
-5 057
Conservative
1 294
1 332
1 371
1 412
1 454
Probable
3 944
4 074
4 210
4 351
4 497
Benefits
From additional visa fees
Increased spending by extra travellers
Total benefits
Costs
Consulate costs
Purchases incl. imports
Total costs
Total (benefits – costs)
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 41.
Table 50 shows that the total costs and benefits for the longer validity facilitation
scenario, as for the other options, provide a positive cash flow over the entire fiveyear period. The "conservative" spending scenario increases from EUR 1 294 million
to EUR 1 454 million, or 12 %., over the five year period. The "probable" spending
scenario increases from EUR 3 944 million to EUR 4 497 million, or 14 %.
Table 51 lists the total costs and benefits for all policy options divided on the
"conservative" and "probable" spending scenarios.
August 2013
127
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 51: Cash flows, "conservative" and "probable" spending scenario
(million EUR)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
conservative
2 824
2 906
2 991
3 078
3 169
probable
2.
Less
requirements
conservative
8 153
8 422
8 701
8 991
9 293
2 448
2 519
2 592
2 668
2 746
7 037
7 269
7 509
7 758
8 017
conservative
3 028
3 113
3 201
3 292
3 387
probable
8 874
9 160
9 456
9 764
10 084
conservative
2 937
3 022
3 109
3 200
3 294
probable
8 388
8 663
8 949
9 246
9 555
conservative
-1 579
-1 624
-1 671
-1 719
-1 769
probable
2.
Less
requirements
conservative
-4 317
-4 459
-4 605
-4 758
-4 916
-1 371
-1 410
-1 450
-1 492
-1 535
-3 729
-3 850
-3 977
-4 108
-4 244
conservative
-1 567
-1 611
-1 656
-1 703
-1 752
probable
-4 571
-4 718
-4 871
-5 029
-5 194
conservative
-1 643
-1 690
-1 738
-1 788
-1 840
probable
-4 444
-4 589
-4 739
-4 895
-5 057
1 245
1 282
1 320
1 359
1 400
3 836
3 963
4 096
4 233
4 376
1 078
1 109
1 142
1 176
1 211
3 309
3 418
3 532
3 650
3 773
conservative
1 461
1 502
1 545
1 589
1 635
probable
4 303
4 442
4 586
4 735
4 890
conservative
1 294
1 332
1 371
1 412
1 454
probable
3 944
4 074
4 210
4 351
4 497
Total benefits
1. Online Application
documentary
probable
3. MEV
4. Longer Validity
Total costs
1. Online Application
documentary
probable
3. MEV
4. Longer Validity
Total benefits less costs
1. Online Application
conservative
probable
2.
Less
requirements
conservative
probable
documentary
3. MEV
4. Longer Validity
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 41.
As can be seen in Table 51, there is a big difference between the costs for the
different visa facilitation scenarios. Looking at the total costs, it is apparent that the
128
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
"MEV" scenario is the not the most expensive scenario even though it yields the
largest number of travellers.
When looking at the benefits for the different visa facilitation scenarios, it is clear that
the "MEV" scenario is the most beneficial for the Schengen area. The least beneficial
facilitation measure is the "Less document requirements" scenario. Moreover, it should
be noted that the analysis employs conservative estimates for the benefits in order to
provide a probable result of the impacts of the different facilitation measures.
Therefore, the resulting benefits might have a larger potential than what is illustrated.
5.5.5
Cost-benefit analysis
As has been described in the previous sections, the total benefits less costs resulting
from the different visa facilitation scenarios lie within a range from EUR 1.1 billion to
EUR 1.5 billion for the "conservative" scenarios, and within a range from EUR 3.3
billion to EUR 4.3 billion for the "probable" scenario, in the first year after full
implementation.
As described earlier, the estimated lifetime of the CBA is five years and the social
discount rate, used to calculate the present time value (the NPV) of the benefits
generated in years 2, 3, 4 and 5, is 4.5 %.
Table 52 presents the results of the CBA in terms of a net-present value and benefitcost ratio for all four visa facilitation scenarios, given the employment of either
conservative or probable spending figures.
Table 52: Cost-benefit analysis
1. Online
Application
2. Less
documentary
requirements
3. MEV
4. Longer
Validity
6 045
5 232
7 076
6 281
18 758
16 177
21 002
19 282
Conservative
1.79
1.79
1.93
1.79
Probable
1.89
1.89
1.94
1.89
Net-present value
Conservative
Probable
Benefit Cost ratio
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 41.
The "MEV" scenario yields the highest net present value in both scenarios. For "MEV"
the NPV is EUR 10.3 billion in the "conservative" scenario and EUR 10.3 billion in the
"probable" scenario. When comparing the costs to the benefit in the benefit-cost ratio,
where the annual discounted benefits are divided by the annual discounted costs, the
"MEV" scenario provides a benefit-cost ratio of 1.93 and 1.94.
The NPVs for the remaining scenarios are all in the range between EUR 5.2 billion and
EUR 6.3 billion for the "conservative" scenario, and in the range between EUR 16.2
billion and EUR 19.3 billion for the "probable" scenario. Furthermore, the benefit-cost
ratios are 1.79 and 1.89 for respectively "conservative" and "probable" for all
remaining scenarios, due to the assumption that visa facilitation practises only affect
the number of travellers and not the ratio of benefits over costs.
The CBA solely takes the aforementioned monetized costs and benefits into account.
Therefore it is important to have all non-monetized costs and benefits in mind when
August 2013
129
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
evaluating the scenarios (e.g. induced and implied
considerations, and positive and negative externalities).
effects,
labour
market
All policy options yield positive net present values, this implies that all facilitation
scenarios will increase social welfare. Furthermore the benefit-cost ratios are above 1
for all scenarios and nearly double for the "MEV" scenario. This implies that the
benefits are nearly twice as large as the costs for the "MEV" scenario. It should again
be noted, that this report employs conservative estimates for the benefits, wherefore
the actual potential benefits from the facilitation measures might be considered to be
even higher.
5.5.6
Sensitivity analysis
The purpose of a sensitivity analysis is to first identify the critical variables in the costbenefit analysis through an assessment of the effect of critical variables on the overall
analysis. The critical variables are thereafter exposed to a "shock" in both the negative
and positive direction to illustrate the effect on the results of the cost-benefit analysis.
The size of the resulting impact on the NPV and benefit-cost ratio is then a measure
for the robustness of these result, e.g. if the NPV is only slightly changed by these
“shocks” the result will be robust. Furthermore the section concludes with a scenario
analysis that takes a change of all critical variables into account. Together this
provides a reliable measure, in order to address the risks and uncertainties of the
project.
The effect analysis of critical variables is based on the recommendation in the
European Commission's guide to cost benefit analyses. In short, each potential critical
variable is changed with 1 % and, given the resulting percentage change in NPV, it is
possible to obtain the elasticity. A one percentage change in both the critical variable
and the NPV will thus result in an elasticity of one. A potential critical variable with a
corresponding elasticity above one will have a high effect, a variable with an elasticity
around one will have an intermediate effect and finally a variable with an elasticity
lower than one will only have a low effect. A sensitivity analysis will be performed on
all parameters that imply an elasticity of one or more.
Table 53: Effect analysis of critical variables
Variables
High
Low
X
Total additional travellers
Purchase/import
Effect
Intermediate
X
visa costs
X
Share of refusals out of total
X
Social Discount rate
X
Based on Table 53 it can be seen that the size of the purchases/imports and the social
discount rate variables have a high effect on the net-present value, i.e. the elasticity is
greater than unity. Furthermore, it is established that the number of additional
travellers will have an intermediate effect on the NPV, and this variable is hence also
included in the sensitivity analysis.
In the sensitivity analysis the critical variables are set with the specific variation listed
in Table 54 while all other parameters are constant.
130
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 54: Critical variable for economic analysis
Critical variable
Range
-/+ 10 %
Total additional travellers
Purchase/import
-/+ 5 percentage points
Social discount rate
-/+ 1 percentage point
The results of the sensitivity analysis are shown in Table 55 to Table 58. In these
tables the scenarios’ NPV and benefit-cost ratios are given for worst and best case
scenarios due to a change in parameter value. For comparison reasons, the medium
case is also listed; this medium case is equivalent to the results shown in the CBA.
Table 55 shows the sensitivity analysis for a change in the total additional number of
travellers.
Table 55: Total additional travellers, -/+ 10 %
NPV
Scenario
1. Online application
Conservative
Probable
2. Less documentary
requirements
Conservative
Probable
3. MEV
Conservative
Probable
4. Longer validity
Conservative
Probable
Worst case
Medium
case
Benefit-cost ratio
Best case
Worst case
Medium
case
Best case
5 441
6 045
6 650
1.79
1.79
1.79
16 883
18 758
20 634
1.89
1.89
1.89
4 709
5 232
5 755
1.79
1.79
1.79
14 559
16 177
17 795
1.89
1.89
1.89
6 381
7 076
7 772
1.94
1.93
1.92
18 914
21 002
23 091
1.95
1.94
1.94
5 653
6 281
6 909
1.79
1.79
1.79
17 354
19 282
21 210
1.89
1.89
1.89
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 41.
NPV for the "MEV" scenario ranges from EUR 6.4 billion in the worst case to EUR 7.8
billion in the best case for the "conservative" scenario and ranges from EUR 18.9
billion in the worst case to EUR 23.1 billion in the best case for the "probable"
scenario, where the numbers of additional travellers are either 10 % lower or higher.
The "MEV" scenario yields a benefit-cost ratio of around 1.9.
NPV for all the remaining scenarios lie in the range from EUR 4.7 billion to 6.9 billion
for the "conservative", and in the range from EUR 14.6 billion to 21.2 billion for the
"probable" scenarios, all worst cases thus yield a substantial positive NPV. The benefitcost ratio will remain constant at 1.79 for "conservative" spending and 1.89 for
"probable" spending, since the relationship between the benefits and costs in these
three scenarios are not affected by a change in the number of travellers (i.e. visa fees
and consulates’ processing costs will be influenced by the same factor).
Table 56 shows the sensitivity analysis for a change in the costs related to the tourism
providers' purchases and imported goods.
August 2013
131
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 56: Purchase/import, -/+ 5 percentage points
NPV
Scenario
1. Online application
Conservative
Probable
2. Less documentary
requirements
Conservative
Probable
3. MEV
Conservative
Probable
4. Longer validity
Conservative
Probable
Worst case
Medium
case
Benefit Cost ratio
Best case
Worst case
Medium
case
Best case
5 406
6 045
6 684
1.65
1.79
1.95
16 812
18 758
20 705
1.73
1.89
2.08
4 678
5 232
5 785
1.65
1.79
1.95
14 497
16 177
17 857
1.73
1.89
2.08
6 346
7 076
7 806
1.76
1.93
2.14
18 840
21 002
23 165
1.77
1.94
2.15
5 616
6 281
6 946
1.65
1.79
1.95
17 280
19 282
21 284
1.73
1.89
2.08
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 41.
NPV for the "MEV" scenario ranges from EUR 6.3 billion in the worst case to EUR 7.8
billion in the best case for the "conservative" scenarios, and ranges from EUR 18.8
billion in the worst case to EUR 23.2 billion in the best case for the "probable"
scenarios, where costs related to the tourism providers' purchases are either
5 percentage points higher or lower. The "MEV" scenarios corresponding benefit-cost
ratios are 1.8 and 2.1 for the worst and best case respectively.
NPV for all the remaining scenarios lie in the interval from EUR 4.7 billion to 6.9 billion
for the "conservative" scenario, and ranges from EUR 14.5 billion in the worst case to
EUR 22.3 billion in the best case for the "probable" scenarios. All worst cases thus
yield a substantial positive NPV. The benefit-cost ratio will remain constant around
1.65 and 1.95 for respectively the worst and best case for the "conservative"
scenarios. For the "probable" scenario the corresponding benefit-cost ratios are 1.73
and 2.08 for respectively the worst and best case.
Table 57 shows the sensitivity analysis for a change in the social discount rate.
132
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 57: Social discount rate, -/+ 1 percentage point
NPV
Scenario
1. Online application
Conservative
Probable
2. Less documentary
requirements
Conservative
Probable
3. MEV
Conservative
Probable
4. Longer validity
Conservative
Probable
Worst case
Medium
case
Benefit Cost ratio
Best case
Worst case
Medium
case
Best case
5 933
6 045
6 161
1.79
1.79
1.79
18 410
18 758
19 120
1.89
1.89
1.89
5 135
5 232
5 332
1.79
1.79
1.79
15 877
16 177
16 489
1.89
1.89
1.89
6 945
7 076
7 212
1.94
1.93
1.93
20 613
21 002
21 407
1.95
1.94
1.94
6 165
6 281
6 402
1.79
1.79
1.79
18 924
19 282
19 654
1.89
1.89
1.89
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 41.
NPV for the "MEV" scenario ranges from EUR 6.9 billion in the worst case to EUR 7.2
billion in the best case for the "conservative" scenarios, and ranges from EUR 20.6
billion in the worst case to EUR 21.4 billion in the best case for the "probable"
scenarios, where the social discount rate is either 1 percentage point higher or lower.
The "MEV" scenario’s corresponding benefit-cost ratios are all around 1.9, regardless
of case.
NPV for all the remaining scenarios lie in the interval from EUR 5.1 billion to 6.4 billion
for the "conservative" scenarios, and ranges from EUR 15.9 billion in the worst case to
EUR 19.7 billion in the best case for the "probable" scenarios. All worst cases thus
yield a substantial positive NPV. The benefit-cost ratio will remain constant around
1.79 for the "conservative" scenarios. For the "probable" scenarios the corresponding
benefit-cost ratios are 1.89, regardless of case.
Scenario analysis
The sensitivity analysis also includes a scenario-analysis, which shows the economic
impacts when all three critical variables are set at worst, medium or best case.




The worst case in the scenario analysis is therefore modelled under the
following conditions, according to the medium case:
The number of additional travellers due to the given visa facilitation change are
10 % lower,
The costs for tourism providers are 5 percentage points higher, and
The social discount rate is 1 percentage point higher.
Table 58 shows the scenario analysis. Here, the effect is shown when all three critical
variables are set at worst, medium or best case.
August 2013
133
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 58: Scenario analysis
NPV
Scenario
1. Online application
Conservative
Probable
2. Less documentary
requirements
Conservative
Probable
3. MEV
Conservative
Probable
4. Longer validity
Conservative
Probable
Worst case
Medium
case
Benefit-cost ratio
Best case
Worst case
Medium
case
Best case
4 775
6 045
7 494
1.65
1.79
1.95
14 849
18 758
23 215
1.73
1.89
2.08
4 132
5 232
6 486
1.65
1.79
1.95
12 805
16 177
20 021
1.73
1.89
2.08
5 618
7 076
8 739
1.77
1.93
2.13
16 653
21 002
25 960
1.77
1.94
2.15
4 961
6 281
7 787
1.65
1.79
1.95
15 263
19 282
23 864
1.73
1.89
2.08
Note: the growth factors are taken from Table 41.
NPV for the "MEV" scenario ranges from EUR 5.6 billion in the worst case to EUR 8.7
billion in the best case for the "conservative" scenario. For the "probable" scenario,
NPV ranges from EUR 16.7 billion in the worst case to EUR 26.0 billion in the best
case. The "MEV" scenarios corresponding benefit-cost ratios are 1.8 and 2.1 for the
worst and best case respectively.
NPV for all the remaining scenarios lie in the interval from EUR 4.1 billion to 7.8 billion
for the "conservative" scenario and ranges from EUR 12.8 billion in the worst case to
EUR 23.9 billion in the best case for the "probable" scenario. All worst cases thus yield
a substantial positive NPV. The benefit-cost ratio will remain constant around 1.65 and
1.95 for respectively the worst and best case for the "conservative" scenario. For the
"probable" scenario, the corresponding benefit-cost ratios are 1.73 and 2.08 for
respectively the worst and best case.
Thus, even with an implementation of these significant changes in all three critical
variables the scenarios still produce substantial positive outcomes. The results
obtained in the CBA are therefore relatively robust to changes in these parameters.
134
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
6. Conclusions of the study
One of the aims of this study is to provide recommendations for “a facilitation
approach which ideally serves tourism policy development, without endangering
security”74. Through the study’s data collection activities and the above analysis, we
have tested and compared various scenarios for potential visa facilitation in terms of
their expected economic impact.
Before discussing (a) potential facilitation approach(es) in more detail, we will first
sum-up the main study findings, which the recommendations will be based on.
6.1
Issues in the implementation of the Visa Code
The results of the study confirm to a large extent the remarks and issues which have
been brought up by industry and tourism associations in recent years. It is clear that
the current visa practices are cumbersome and complicated from the applicants’
perspective, and that the harmonisation intended by the Visa Code has not been
realised fully.
The following points deserve to be highlighted in particular:






Requirements for supporting documents are implemented and interpreted
differently among the consulates. In particular “proof of means” as well as
“employers certificate” appears to be problematic;
Requirements for translation differ, for example in Saudi Arabia and China, all
or most documents need to be translated (presumably officially translated at an
additional cost for the applicant);
Differences in the requirement to meet in person between target countries and
consulates;
Unexplained differences in the share of C visas issued as MEVs. In some
consulates it seems almost “default” and in others very rare;
The cost of ESPs mean that the harmonised visa fee is not valid, since costs of
ESPs differ;
Different facilitation measures are being put in place by Member States to
mitigate the impact of the visa regime on travellers (from certain target
countries) leading to a diverse implementation and interpretation of the Visa
Code.
Overall, the added value of the supporting documents and the visa procedure (in
particular requirement to meet in person) can be discussed. The purpose of the
requirements for supporting documents and the procedure is to screen and ensure
that only individuals with valid reasons to visit the Schengen area receive a visa.
Currently, the refusal rates for the target markets are very low, with 2 % on average,
which assuming the current visa practices are efficient in detecting non-eligible
travellers, indicate that there is a low risk.
However, the key question is whether this is really due to the supporting documents
and visa practices, or if it is simply due to few non-eligible demands being made. As
the findings of the study suggest there are ample possibilities for simplifying and
facilitating access for legitimate travellers, which in turn would lead to more travellers
and tourists coming in to the Schengen area from emerging markets.
74
Terms of Reference for the study
August 2013
135
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Lastly, it has been noted that the future roll-out of VIS to all the world
regions will pose new issues as well as opportunities for visa facilitation, by
requiring collection of biometric data from all visa applicants. This means
that first-time travellers (and current during roll-out phase) to the Schengen
area will be required to meet in person, either at a consulate or an ESP, to
provide the biometric data. The main objective should thus be for Member
States to make this transition as smooth as possible for travellers, by
ensuring easy access.
6.2
The main issues seen from the travellers perspective
There is one certain conclusion to be drawn from this study: time is an issue for
travellers in what regards (Schengen) visa processing.
All sources indicate that at least five of the six target markets are to a large extent
characterised by late bookings, i.e. 30 days or less in advance (South Africa being the
exception to the rule, representing another case of the time issue, with travellers
wishing to acquire visas more than three months ahead of departure). In this
perspective, a prospective time frame of up to a month for acquiring a Schengen visa
is considered a deterring factor for in particular leisure travellers in choosing their
destination.
Though the findings of this study indicate that the average application processing time
at Schengen consulates is only approximately 5 days, with all the other steps involved
for the applicant in a regular application procedure (collecting the supporting
documents required, possibly having them translated, getting an appointment, lodging
and collecting the application in person) it adds up to a very time-consuming process.
To qualify the statement that time is an (or the) issue, it can be added that
particularly the requirement to meet in person at the consulate and the type
and nature of the required supporting documents (including the sometimes
applied requirement for translations) are considered problematic in this regard. These
particular issues were already indicated in the literature review and were clearly
confirmed by the consulates, travellers and travel agents surveyed in this study.
6.3
Preferred solutions by the travellers
Travellers and travel agents to a large extent agreed on four preferred solutions to the
abovementioned issues, i.e. the scenarios which they estimated would have the
largest effect on, respectively, their interest in travelling (more) to the Schengen area
and on the number of trips sold to Schengen countries:




Visa on arrival,
Visa-free travel,
Multiple-Entry Visa (MEV),
Visa with longer validity.
Visa on arrival and visa-free entry would of course completely eliminate the
abovementioned time issue and related problems, but neither is a feasible solution
from a legal and security perspective.
MEVs would retain the problems to the first-time travel, facilitating subsequent entries
to the Schengen area; and visas with longer validity would provide more flexibility in
terms of travel dates etc., rendering the processing time less problematic.
136
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Ranked up there with the abovementioned preferred options were also some other
facilitation measures, namely online application procedure and less documentary
requirements.
These more directly address the problems related to the time issue, seeing as an
online application procedure could imply waiving the requirement to meet in person,
and were, as such, also endorsed by a majority of the surveyed consulates as
plausible options for visa facilitation.
6.4
The most cost-beneficial option(s)
Weighing the estimated costs and expected benefits of the preferred options against
each other, they ranked as follows (according to the estimated net-present value,
NPV):
1.
2.
3.
4.
Wider use of MEVs,
Longer validity,
Online application,
Less documentary requirements.
Visa-free entry and visa on arrival are, as mentioned, not considered plausible
solutions for the time being, and were only included in the analysis as the most
“extreme” cases with the (expected) largest potential economic impact on Schengen
tourism.
It is thus interesting that visa on arrival only ranks third (after MEVs), as it should, in
our understanding, provide the easiest access for tourists to the Schengen area, after
visa-free entry. We see three possible explanations for why this option was not the
second-most preferred: i) the scenario presented to the surveyed travellers did not
contain any details, and it is thus possible that some respondents understood this
scenario differently than we intended; ii) some travellers (as suggested by an
interviewed travel agent) prefer to have their visa in-hand before departure not risking
potential rejection at the Schengen border; iii) A large proportion of the travellerssurvey sample had already previously travelled to the Schengen area, one or several
times, and as such could qualify for an MEV.
From both the economic impact assessment and the cost-benefit analysis it is clear
that based on the data collected, the option of issuing MEVs has the highest potential
impact of the surveyed plausible facilitation scenarios. Meanwhile, it is important to
interpret these results with some care. As previously outlined, a large part of the
survey respondents had already travelled to the Schengen area, and would thus
benefit from MEV. Among first-time travellers this would not be the case, and fewer
respondents indicate MEV as an interesting facilitation measure.
It is likely that the MEV option would not benefit (or attract) potential new
travellers, but only contribute to an increase in travel among current
travellers.
The same to some extent holds true for the online application procedure scenario,
which, if a full-scale online procedure is envisaged, would currently only be relevant
for visa applicants who live up to the criteria set in the Visa Code for waiving the
requirement to meet in person at the consulate. Since this requirement was also
pointed out as one of the most problematic aspects of the current visa procedure, it
could be further discussed whether the requirement to meet in person could and
August 2013
137
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
should in fact be waived or removed all together - especially considering that many of
the surveyed consulates also indicated this as a relevant option for further visa
facilitation. This discussion, however, is complicated by the prospect of the future
collection of biometric identifiers to be introduced with the VIS roll-out. This will be
elaborated more below.
In a similar fashion, the option of longer validity of visas also borders on being
legally feasible (see section 5.2) within the current legislative framework, but
considering that it appears to be a popular scenario with travellers, with relatively high
potential economic impact, it is also worth considering this option further, when
discussing recommendations for possible next steps. Moreover, if this option is
interpreted as a call for making the fixed period of validity more flexible, while not
extending the duration beyond the current maximum of 90 days (within a 180-days
period), this scenario may be more plausible. This will be further outlined and
discussed below.
Seeing as the goal of this study is, in part, to propose options for particularly
attracting new travellers (those currently deterred from travelling to the Schengen
area due to the visa procedure), it is necessary to look beyond the most popular/costbeneficial option - i.e. the MEVs option (and to some extent the scenario of online
application procedure), which is limited to certain groups of travellers, particularly
targeting frequent/recurring travellers. Thus, in the following, we will also bring into
the consideration the scenario of modifying the documentary requirements and
discuss the potential of perhaps a introducing a combination of several different
facilitation measures.
In order to attract new travellers, or first-time travellers, it will be necessary
to implement facilitation measures or revisions, which makes it easier and
quicker for legitimate, eligible travellers to obtain a visa to the Schengen
area.
138
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
7. Recommendations for the future
Considering the findings outlined above, the aim of any proposed changes to the
Schengen visa procedures must be to reduce the amount of time involved for the
applicant, to speed up the entire process of acquiring a Schengen visa.
More concretely, any recommendation for further visa facilitation in the six target
countries should particularly address: 1) the requirement to meet in person at the
consulate (or ESP); 2) the requirements for supporting documents; and 3) aim to
introduce more flexibility to accommodate the time issue more generally.
Regarding the first point, there is, however, one important factor to take into
consideration: the fact that the VIS roll-out (to be completed by 2015 means that all
first-time Schengen travellers must meet in person at the consulate (or the ESP) to
provide their biometric identifiers .
75
In this perspective, it would not make sense to continue discussing the prospect of
waiving the requirement to meet in person – at least not for first-time travellers.
Meanwhile, for subsequent visits to Schengen countries, there will be all the more
reason for not requiring visa applicants to lodge the application in person, given the
potential for monitoring and registering travellers offered by the VIS.
A second overall point to take into consideration is the objectives of the Visa Code.
The pre-amble of the Visa Code state that it aims at “further development of the
common visa policy as part of a multi-layer system aimed at facilitating legitimate
travel and tackling illegal immigration through further harmonisation of national
legislation and handling practices at local consular missions”.
It can be concluded from this study that this objective is only partly achieved, with
differences in how the Visa Code is implemented and interpreted by the Member State
and Consular missions. This should be taken into account when discussing different
means of resolving the issues identified in the study. Identified issues could (and are
already by some Member States) in effect be solved through facilitation measures
which would be feasible within the current version Visa Code, however this would be
contrary to the aims of the regulation, i.e. harmonisation.
In the following we therefore elaborate on how to resolve main issues identified, both
with facilitation measures and legal revisions. In discussing possible next steps for
further Schengen visa facilitation, we will particularly consider the following options:
75
Cf. Visa Code, art. 13.
August 2013
139
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Issue to be
addressed
Requirement
to
meet in person
Requirements for
supporting
documents
Increasing
flexibility
Non-legislative actions
Review of Visa Code
Possible actions:
 Online application
system, waiving
requirement to meet in
person (as allowed for in
current Visa Code)
 System of accredited
travel agents (CZ)
Possible actions:
 Revise art. 10, removing
requirement to meet in
person for all persons
who have completed
successful visa-travels
to Schengen
Targeted travellers:
 Frequent/known
travellers
Possible actions:
 Review and simplify
requirements for
supporting documents
as applied by the MSs
 E-voucher scheme (PL)
Targeted travellers:
 Frequent/second-time
Schengen travellers
Possible actions:
 Review and revision of
art. 14
Targeted travellers:
 All travellers
Targeted travellers:
 All travellers
Possible actions:
 Encourage MSs to make
wider use of issuing
MEVs
Possible actions:
 Issue MEVs with longer
validity
Targeted travellers:
 Frequent/known
travellers
Targeted travellers:
 Frequent/known
travellers
Possible actions:
 Encourage
MSs/consulates to issue
visas with more flexible
period of validity, within
the existing 90 days
maximum for shortstays (amendment of
Schengen Visa
Handbook required)
Possible actions:
 Introduce longer/ more
flexible period of
validity, within the
existing 90 days
maximum for shortstays (amendment of
art. 29(1) and annex
VIII)
Targeted travellers:
 All travellers
Targeted travellers:
 All travellers
In the following we elaborate in more detail what is meant with the recommendations
outlined in the table above. But first it should be highlighted that the possible steps
presented in the different table cells are by no means mutually exclusive. What the
table suggests is that it is possible to address the identified issues through both nonlegislative and legal measures – one may very well accompany the other, and further
down we will also discuss a potential combination-option.
140
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
7.1
Recommendations addressing the requirement to meet in person
Non-legislative actions
Description
Recommendation 1: Online application
system
Recommendation 2: System of
accredited travel agents
Recommendation 3: Remove
requirement to meet in person (art. 10)
Establishment of a common system for
Schengen consulates for visa applicants to
upload all supporting documents and submitting
the application online.
(Inspired by system currently used by a
number of Czech consulates; further
description can be found in annex VIII.)
Art. 10 of the Visa Code states that a person
shall appear in person when lodging a visa
application.
The scheme is based on Art 45 of the Visa
code and applies only to travel agents and
not to other intermediaries. The
accreditation procedure consists of a security
check on the basis of which the travel agents
receive an accreditation (for one year,
subject to renewal), which allows them to
lodge a visa application on behalf of the
applicant.
With the roll-out of the VIS, the requirement
to meet in person should be removed for all
travellers submitting subsequent visa
applications, for which the already registered
biometric identifiers can be transferred from a
previous to the new application.
Travel documents (for attachment of the visa
sticker) could be handed in to/picked up from
consulate by courier or in person.
Post-VIS roll-out, the full-scale version would
only be relevant for persons who have travelled
to the Schengen area at least once before. It is
assessed that the current Visa Code allows for
waiving requirement to meet in person for this
group of travellers, but if not the system should
be accompanied by recommendation no. 3
(revision of Visa Code, art. 10).
Advantages



August 2013
Review of Visa Code
Easy access to consulates and facilitation of
process of lodging visa application for
travellers.
Among the most preferred scenarios with
travellers-survey respondents, which implies
high potential for increasing number of
travellers
Facilitate visa processing for consular staff


For travellers/visa applicants, it waives
the requirement for personal presence
when submitting/collecting the
application.
For consulates, it enables processing of
a larger number of visa applications and
facilitates submitting the visa
applications to the applicants.
Art. 13 of the Visa Code, regulating the
collection of biometric identifiers, in our
understanding already allows for this practice
(given that the biometric data has been
collected within the past 59 months).
However, in connection with this study, some
stakeholders have problematized the fact
that, e.g. in Saudi Arabia where the VIS is
already in place, visa applicants still
experience being required to appear in person
to provide biometric data even for
subsequent applications.
 For (some) travellers/visa applicants, it
waives the requirement for personal
presence when submitting/collecting the
application.
141
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Non-legislative actions
Disadvantages
EC action
142
Review of Visa Code
Recommendation 1: Online application
system
Recommendation 2: System of
accredited travel agents
Only applicable (in its full form) to
frequent/known travellers. The system could
potentially be used in a “light” version (for
filling in application and submitting
documents) for first-time travellers, but as
they would still have to meet in person, it is
likely to have smaller impact.
 Usefulness will depend on IT infrastructure
and only be relevant for travellers who are
computer literate and have internet access.
To ensure the implementation of a harmonised
and user-friendly system, the Commission
should take charge on developing a system (in
collaboration with MSs/consulates and travel
associations).



Post-VIS roll-out, it will only be
applicable to frequent/known travellers,
who have already supplied biometric
identifiers.
Only relevant for travellers who book
through agencies.
In collaboration with the Czech Republic, and
based on their experiences, the Commission
could develop guidelines and implementation
manual for establishing similar system in
other target countries and Schengen
consulates.
August 2013
Recommendation 3: Remove
requirement to meet in person (art. 10)

Only relevant for frequent/recurrent
travellers
It is recommended to consider, whether a
revision of the legal provisions are necessary
to clarify this matter or whether the
consulates’ understanding and application of
the rules can be better accommodated
through e.g. the Schengen visa handbook.
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
7.2
Recommendations addressing the requirements for supporting documents
Non-legislative actions
Description
Recommendation 4: review and simplify
requirements for supporting documents, as
applied by MSs
Recommendation 5: e-voucher scheme
Recommendation
6:
Review
and
revision
of
art.
14,
supporting
documents
The survey among consulates revealed large
differences in consulates’ practices in terms of
required supporting documents (copy/original,
pre-paid journey/hotel or only reservation, etc.).
Moreover, a majority of consulates indicated that
some required supporting documents are even of
limited use.
(Inspired by system currently used in Poland;
further description can be found in annex
VIII.)
Taking recommendation no. 4 one step
further, rather than only streamlining the
application of article 14 of the Visa Code
(i.e. the specific types of supporting
documents required), the legal basis itself
could be reviewed and revised to assess
whether the different types of proof
required from the applicant (e.g. proof of
accommodation) are in fact all pertinent
and of value in issuing visas.
It is recommended to streamline the consulates’
requirements
for
supporting
documents,
simplifying them as much as possible, e.g. by
only requiring copies of supporting documents,
only requiring reservations/bookings and not prepayments of hotels and plane ticket, etc.
The simplification of the requirements can be
further
developed
in
collaboration
with
representatives
of
consulates/persons
experienced in issuing visas.
Advantages



August 2013
Review of Visa Code
Addresses all travellers
For travellers/visa applicants, it simplifies the
procedure and requirements for supporting
documents and shortens the time for them
involved in collecting documents for the
application.
For consulates, it could facilitate visa
processing if there are fewer supporting
documents to review and verify.
Certified tour operators (the certification
scheme is, in Poland, managed by the
Chamber of Tourism) can issue e-vouchers to
visa applicants (tourists) who have purchased
travel packages. The e-voucher replaces
some supporting documents that would
otherwise be required in a visa application.
More specifically, it replaces 5 supporting
documents: proof of stay, hotel booking,
proof of payment, bank certificate, and
statement from employer.
The e-vouchers are issued on behalf of the
consulate and attached to the visa application
in printed form. An electronic system (in
Poland operated by the Chamber of tourism)
contains information about the issued evouchers. The consular bodies, border guards
and Ministry of Foreign Affairs have access to
the system and can check information in it.
 For travellers/visa applicants, it simplifies
the procedure and requirements for
supporting documents and (based on
Polish experience) shortens time to
receive a visa.
 For consulates, it facilitates visa
processing.
 For the tourism industry, the advantage
is that visas are no longer considered an
obstacle.
 (In Polish experience) The advantage for
the country is that it is perceived as a
friendlier tourist destination.



Addresses all travellers
For travellers/visa applicants, it
simplifies the procedure and
requirements for supporting documents
and shortens the time for them
involved in collecting documents for the
application.
For consulates, it could facilitate visa
processing if there are fewer supporting
documents to review and verify.
143
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Non-legislative actions
Recommendation 4: review and simplify
requirements for supporting documents, as
applied by MSs
Disadvantages

Some supporting documents, which can be
considered of little use, may still have to be
required, as long as no legislative changes
are made, in order for applicants (and
consulates) to live up to the proof required
by art. 14 of the Visa Code.
EC action
Develop, in collaboration with persons with
experience in issuing visas (e.g. consulate
representatives), simple and clear guidelines on
the type and nature of supporting documents to
be required.
Review of Visa Code
Recommendation 5: e-voucher scheme

Only relevant for travellers who book
through (certified) agencies.
In collaboration with Poland, and based on
their experiences, the Commission could
spearhead the development of guidelines and
implementation manual
for establishing
similar system in other target countries and
Schengen consulates.
Recommendation
6:
Review
and
revision
of
art.
14,
supporting
documents
Revising the Visa Code would mean
that changes are applicable to
travellers from all countries comprised
by Schengen visa requirements. It does
not allow for taking different security
ratings of different countries into
account, and it could perhaps be
argued that for some countries all
requirements are still pertinent, while
perhaps redundant for others.
Review,
in
collaboration
with
consulates/MSs, the different types of proof
required for visa applications as outlined in
art. 14 of the Visa Code.

7.3 Recommendations addressing the need for increasing flexibility
Non-legislative actions
Description
144
Review of Visa Code
Recommendation 7:
Encourage MSs to make wider
use of issuing MEVs
Recommendation 8:
encourage MSs to issue visas
with more flexible period of
validity
Recommendation 9: Issue
MEVs with longer validity
Recommendation 10: longer/
more flexible period of validity
Statistics on issuance of MEVs
show large differences between
the Schengen countries’
consulates in terms of numbers of
Schengen visas issued as MEVs.
This indicates a) that some
countries perhaps have more
applicants with legitimate
grounds for being granted MEVS;
and/or b) that
countries/consulates interpret the
It is recommended to change the
guidelines in the Schengen visa
handbook on how to establish the
period of validity stated for visas
issued (cf. p. 67). The current
advised practice, where the
period of validity is set from a
fixed date (the date of arrival)
leaves no room for flexibility for
the visa applicant to subsequently
adjust their travel date, e.g. due
According to the Visa Code,
multiple-entry visas shall be
issued with a period of validity
between six months and five
years. (art. 24).
Taking recommendation no. 8 one
step further; rather than only
encouraging consulates to make
the fixed period of validity more
flexible, by revising the legal basis
– mainly art. 24 and especially
annex VIII to the Visa Code, which
specifies how the visa sticker shall
be filled in (including period of
There is generally a lack of
statistics on the validity of issued
MEVs, but research indicates
large differences between
consulates’ practices. To ensure
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Non-legislative actions
Recommendation 7:
Encourage MSs to make wider
use of issuing MEVs
Recommendation 8:
encourage MSs to issue visas
with more flexible period of
validity
Recommendation 9: Issue
MEVs with longer validity
Recommendation 10: longer/
more flexible period of validity
provisions of art. 24 of the Visa
Code, which states that the
applicant must prove a “need or
justified intention to travel
frequently and/or regularly” and
prove his “integrity and
reliability”.
to long visa processing or other
factors influencing the travel
schedule.
more harmonisation and facilitate
visa processing (for both
travellers and consulates), the
legal provisions should be
specified more and the maximum
period of validity of MEVs possibly
extended.
validity).
Inspiration could be taken from
the UK, where MEVs are issued
for six months, two, five and ten
years (for high value/minimal risk
visa nationals).
Inspiration could be taken from
e.g. the UK where a visa for a
single journey is normally valid
within 30 days allowing for a stay
of up to six months (though a
shorter period may be specified).
The preamble of the Visa Code
already states the objective that
multiple-entry visas should be
issued “in order to lessen the
administrative burden of Member
States’ consulates and to
facilitate smooth travel for
frequent or regular travellers.
Applicants known to the
consulate for their integrity and
reliability should as far as
possible benefit from a simplified
procedure.”
Advantages
August 2013
Review of Visa Code
Serving this objective, the
Schengen consulates should be
encouraged and guided to make
wider use of MEVs.
 Popular with surveyed
travellers; indicates
large potential for
positive impact on no. of
travellers.
 For travellers, would
facilitate more smooth
travel/easier access to
the Schengen area.
 For consulates, less
administrative burdens
(and costs).
Consulates should be
encouraged/advised (through a
revision of the Schengen
handbook) to, when possible
within the 90 days frame, issue
visas with a fixed period of
validity that allows for more
flexibility by granting a little
margin around both the
estimated outbound and return
travel dates.
The legal provisions and guidance
provided in annexes and the visa
handbook should be changed to
allow for more unspecified (i.e. not
fixed dates) periods of visa validity.
To allow for maximum flexibility,
this should be combined with
recommendation 4, in making
sure that visa applicants are not
required to provide proof of prepaid (i.e. fixed dates) travel.


Addresses all travellers.
For travellers, more
flexibility in terms of not
settling on specific travel
dates prior to the visa
application.



Popular with surveyed
travellers; indicates
large potential for
positive impact on no. of
travellers.
For travellers, would
facilitate more smooth
travel/easier access to
the Schengen area.
For consulates, less
administrative burdens
(and costs).



Popular with surveyed
travellers; indicates large
potential for positive
impact on no. of
travellers.
Addresses all travellers.
For travellers, more
flexibility in terms of not
settling on specific travel
dates prior to the visa
application.
145
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Non-legislative actions
Recommendation 7:
Encourage MSs to make wider
use of issuing MEVs
Disadvantages


EC action
146
Only relevant for
frequent/known travellers.
Without any legal changes,
the option may have a more
limited effect.
Guidance for Schengen
consulates (e.g. through visa
handbook or communication).
Review of Visa Code
Recommendation 8:
encourage MSs to issue visas
with more flexible period of
validity

Without any legal changes,
the option may have a more
limited effect.
Revise the Schengen visa
handbook.
Recommendation 9: Issue
MEVs with longer validity
Recommendation 10: longer/
more flexible period of validity
Only relevant for
frequent/known travellers.
 A Revision of the Visa Code
would mean that all visa
travellers (and not only those
from the six target markets)
would be comprised by the
changes. This would not
allow for a distinction
between visa countries of
higher or lower risk in terms
of illegal migration.
Revision of art. 24 (and related
provisions) of the Visa Code.


August 2013
A Revision of the Visa Code
would mean that all visa
travellers (and not only those
from the six target markets)
would be comprised by the
changes. This would not allow
for a distinction between visa
countries of higher or lower
risk in terms of illegal
migration.
Revision of art. 24 and annex VIII
of the Visa Code as well as the visa
handbook.
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
As mentioned above, the different steps recommended towards further visa facilitation
are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact, there may be increased positive effects
to be gained from an approach that combines several initiatives. As the economic
impact assessment showed (see section 5.4.4), there could be good sense in
combining the scenarios of Online application, Visas with longer validity and Less
documentary requirements, especially considering that this combination has the
potential to increase the number of travellers to the Schengen area from the six target
markets by 15 146 000, which is 3.5 % more than the best case of the individual
scenarios (the MEVs option). For methodological reasons, it did not make sense to
include the MEVs scenarios in the economic calculation of a combination scenario, but
this (in one of the forms outlined above) could also be pursued alongside the other
facilitation initiatives; just as e-voucher and accredited travel agents schemes could
very well be implemented too.
We see two possible ways of moving forward with this multiple-facilitation
approach: either
a) a more voluntary or “laissez-faire” approach, where the various ideas (of
course in a more developed form than at this stage) are presented to the
Schengen Member States and implementation guidance and support offered by
the Commission, while the final choice and responsibility is left to the discretion
of the individual countries; or
b) a more harmonised and coordinated approach, where both design and
implementation is spear-headed by the Commission. We recommend the latter
– the coordinated approach, with reference to the objective of the Schengen
visa system and Code, namely to achieve more harmonisation between the
Member States’ practices for issuing visas. In connection with this study, it has
moreover become apparent that there is in fact a relatively low level of
harmonisation between the consulates’ practices, and that this raises issues
such as reduced transparency for the visa applicants in understanding the
Schengen visa processing and risks of “visa shopping”. Transparency is
particularly important in terms of attracting new/first-time travellers, who may
currently be deterred from travelling to the Schengen area due to their
perception of the visa process as unclear and cumbersome.
Two possible paths can also be envisaged for the harmonised/coordinated
approach:
a. Through revision of the Visa Code. To ensure that the initiatives taken by the
Commission have the sufficient mandate to induce change and harmonisation,
it is probably necessary to make the measures legally binding, and an
adaptation of the Schengen visa handbook is thus considered insufficient. The
disadvantage of this approach is that changes to the Visa Code would apply to
Schengen visa issuance in all countries comprised by visa requirements.
Considering that the assessment of the different proposed options were made
only with the six target countries of this study in mind (countries that can,
based on visa-refusal statistics, be considered relatively low-risk), potential
security issues may be raised for some of the scenarios if they are to be
implemented for other countries as well.
b. Another option could be to introduce visa facilitation agreements for the six
target countries (and potentially others) specifically (for Russia and Ukraine
this would imply a revision/elaboration of the existing agreements). The
advantage of taking this path being that it allows for tailoring facilitation
measures to the risk assessment for individual countries as well as to the
different preferences/needs expressed by travellers of different nationalities.
For example, the accredited travel agents and e-voucher schemes may be
particularly relevant in China, where ADS system for instance means that travel
August 2013
147
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
agents are used to a high extent. Meanwhile, in India, there may be greater
effect from ensuring easier access to consulates through other means, such as
the use of ESPs, online application systems etc., given that the travel market is
more dispersed and the number of independent travellers higher. In Saudi
Arabia a fast-track system and any other means for reducing the visa
processing time may be highly valued, as the Saudi Arabian travellers are
particularly late bookers. Measure to simplify the documentary requirements
may be relevant for first-time travellers from all countries, and particularly
Ukraine and Russia (as indicated by the findings of the travellers-survey).
148
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Annex I: Bibliography
European Tour Operators Association (2010): Europe: Open for business? Reopening
the debate on visa policy
European Tour Operators Association (2011): A hidden Market. Overcoming the visa
barrier
European Travel Commission and World Tourism Organization (2009): The Indian
Outbound Travel Market with Special Insight into the Image of Europe as a Destination
European Travel Commission and World Tourism Organization (2009): The Russian
Outbound Travel Market with Special Insight into the Image of Europe as a Destination
European Travel Commission and World Tourism Organization (2011): The Chinese
Outbound Travel Market with Special Insight into the Image of Europe as a Destination
European Travel Commission and World Tourism Organization (2012): The Middle East
Outbound Travel Market with Special Insight into the Image of Europe as a Destination
Johanson, Mark (2013): At 2013 World Economic Forum, Marriott and Hilton propose
smart visas to revolutionize global travel. Ibtimes, January 24th 2013.
Kiyv Post (2013): Gryshchenko: Kyiv successfully fulfilling action plan on visa
facilitation with EU, 16 January 2013.
Kiyv Post (2013): Ukrainians say EU nations still too stingy with visas, 29 January
2013.
Klijs, Jeroen; Heijman, Wim; Korteweg Maris, Diana; Bryon, Jeroen (2012): Criteria
for comparing economic models of tourism, Tourism Economics, Volume 18, Number
6, December 2012, pp.1203-1227.
OECD (2012): OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2012.
Ost-Ausschuss der Deutschen Wirtschaft (2011): Wege zur Visa-Freiheit.
Popescu, Nicu (2011): On EU-Russia visa-free travel. EU Observer.
Today's Zaman (2013): Phobia-stricken EU drags feet on visa liberalization for Turks,
06 January 2013.
UNTWO & World Travel and Tourism Council (2012): The Impact of Visa Facilitation on
Job Creation in the G20 Economies
UNWTO (2013): China - the new number one tourism source market in the world. PR
13020, 4 April 2013, http://media.unwto.org/en/press-release/2013-04-04/chinanew-number-one-tourism-source-market-world, retrieved 2013-04-17.
August 2013
149
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
UNWTO (2013): Visa facilitation: Stimulating economic growth and development
through tourism
UNWTO (2013): World Tourism Barometer. Advance Release January 2013.
World Travel and Tourism Council (2011): Travel and Tourism 2011
World Travel and Tourism Council (2012): Tourism Economic Impact in the European
Union 2012
150
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Annex II: Mapping of visa practices
(Attached in a separate document)
August 2013
151
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Annex III: List of surveyed Travel Agents and Tour
Operators
China
China International Travel Service
China Ocean Travel
Beijing Hua Yan International Travel
Phoenix Travel Worldwide
Caissa Travel Management
Beijing
n.a.
Beijing
n.a.
Beijing
India
Vacations Exotica
Nomad Travel
Cirrus Travels
Viceregal Travels
Shreya Travels
Regal Voyages
Visa Tours and Travel
Mumbai
Mumbai
Mumbai
Cochin
Bangalore
Bangalore
Bangalore
Russia
PAC Group
TUI Russia and CIS
BSI Group
KMP Group
Moscow
Moscow
Moscow
Moscow
Saudi Arabia
Al Tayyar Group
Kanoo Holidays
n.a.
n.a.
South Africa
Harvey World Travel
Thompsons Holidays
Association of South African Travel Agents
(ASTA)
152
n.a
Durban
Johannesburg
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Ukraine
Turtess Travel
TUI Ukraine
Widerstrahl
Pan Ukraine
Royal Voyage
August 2013
Kiev
Kiev
Kiev
Kiev
Donetsk
153
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Annex IV: Questionnaire – survey of Schengen
consulates
Economic Impact Study on simplification of Visa Application to the Schengen
area
Survey Schengen Consulates
Welcome to the consulates-survey, part of the Study on the economic impact of
visa facilitation in the Schengen Area. Before you start, we invite you to read
carefully the instructions below.
What do I do? Begin your response by clicking on the right side arrow below. Use the
arrows at the bottom of each page to move backwards and forwards within the
questionnaire.
How much time does it take to answer? We estimate that 15-20 min are needed
to complete the survey, depending on how much time you would like to spend on
answering open questions.
Complete the questions all at once! You can access the questionnaire via the link
several times, but once you finalize and submit, you will not be able to access your
answers again. If you want to review all questions before answering online, you can
generate a printable version of the questionnaire by clicking on the icon below. You
will also be able to print your responses once you have completed the survey.
If you have questions about the study, please contact Ms Mathilde Heegaard Bausager
at [email protected]
If you have questions of technical nature, please contact Ms Tsvetelina Blagoeva at
[email protected]
If you wish to see the whole questionnaire and perhaps to print it, click on the print
icon below.
Part 1. Background
1. How many consular staff work on Schengen visa applications at the
Consulate? If possible, answer in terms of full-time employees (FTEs).
__________
2. Do you have staff members who are nationals of the host country working
at the Consulate on visa applications?

yes

no
3. Do you find it difficult to meet the deadlines stipulated in the Visa Code?

Yes, the two week deadline for an appointment

Yes, the fifteen days deadline for issuing a C-visa

No, in general we don’t have difficulties complying with the deadlines
154
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
4. What is the average time in days for an applicant to receive a visa decision, from
when the application is handed in at the Consulate?
____________________
5. Approximately how long does it take to examine an average C-visa
application (for the purpose of taking a decision on the application)?

One to four hours

Five hours to one day

More than one day
6. What is the most common ground for C-visa refusal for leisure travellers?

Uncertainty regarding the purpose of stay

Inadequate proof of means of subsistence

Lack of proof of will to return

Other (Please specify)
__________________________________________________
7. What is the most common ground for C-visa refusal for business
travellers?

Uncertainty regarding the purpose of stay

Inadequate proof of means of subsistence

Lack of proof of will to return

Other (Please specify)
__________________________________________________
Part 2. Visa procedures
8. Do you use external service providers?

Yes, for booking appointments

Yes, for appointments, collection of applications and delivery of
passport/visa

Yes, for capturing information electronically

Yes, for other services (please specify)
________________________________________

No, we do not use external service providers
9. How do you cope with peak periods for visa applications (holidays etc.)?

We do not have any particular way of coping with peak periods

We employ extra local staff

We get temporary additional staff from the capital

We reallocate staff within the Consulate

Other (please specify)
________________________________________
10. Which supporting documents do you require for the C-visa application?
Please specify whether you require copies, originals or both a copy and an
original.
10 A) In terms of flight reservation:
August 2013
155
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Which documents
do you require?
Please indicate if you require
the original document
and/or a copy
Always
In special
Never
cases
original
copy
Airline reservation
confirmation





Paid flight ticket





Statement from travel agent 




Other(please specify below) 




If you selected 'other', please specify the type of document required.
____________________
10 B) In terms of hotel booking:
Which documents do you
require?
Please indicate if you require
the original document
and/or a copy
In special
Never
cases
original
copy
Confirmation of reservation 




Receipt of pre-paid hotel
accommodation





Other (please specify
below)





Always
If you selected 'other', please specify the type of document required.
____________________
10 C) In terms of establishing the purpose of stay:
Which documents do you
require?
Please indicate if you require
the original document
and/or a copy
Always
In special
Never
cases
original
copy
Invitation from sponsor in
Schengen country





Letter from employer





Travel itinerary





Other (please specify
below)





If you selected 'other', please specify the type of document required.
____________________
156
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
10 D) In terms of medical insurance:
Which documents do you
require?
Please indicate if you require
the original document
and/or a copy
Always
In special
Never
cases
original
copy
Confirmation from insurer





Insurance certificate





Other (please specify
below)





If you selected 'other', please specify the type of document required.
____________________
10 E-1) In terms of proof of means of subsistence:
Which documents do you
require?
Please indicate if you require
the original document
and/or a copy
Always
In special
Never
cases
original
copy
Salary slips





Bank statement





Tax revenue form





Credit card





Exchange receipt





Certificate of property





Travellers checks





Other (please specify
below)





If you selected 'other', please specify the type of document required.
____________________
10 E-2) In terms of proof of means of subsistence (for dependents):
Which documents do you
require?
Bank statement of spouse
August 2013
Please indicate if you require
the original document
and/or a copy
Always
In special
Never
cases
original
copy





157
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Which documents do you
require?
Please indicate if you require
the original document
and/or a copy
Always
In special
Never
cases
original
copy
Marriage certificate





Other (please specify
below)





If you selected 'other', please specify the type of document required.
____________________
11. What are the language requirements for supporting documents?

All documents (except passport), must be translated into the language
of the Consulate's state or English

All documents can be submitted in the language of the host country

Some documents can be submitted in the language of the host country
12. What amount of EUR does the Consulate assess as sufficient funds for
entering the Schengen Area?

Between 30-60 EUR/day and person

Between 61-100 EUR/day and person

Between 101-150 EUR/day and person

Above 150 EUR/day and person

Do not know / no fixed amount set
13 A. When lodging an application, the applicant:

must appear in person (either at the consulate or the External Sevice
Provider)

can mandate (power of attorney) to a third person to do so

can have a close family member do so on his/her behalf

can make use of courier services

can make use of representatives/travel agents

other (please specify)
__________
13 B. When collecting their passport, the applicant:

must appear in person to collect the passport

can authorise a third person to do so with a power of attorney

can have a close family member collect the passport

can make use of courier services

can make use of representatives/travel agents

other (please specify)
__________
Part 3: Facilitation procedures
14. Has the Consulate implemented any facilitation of procedures?

Yes, for certain supporting documents. Please specify:
________________________________________

Yes, with on-line booking of appointments for lodging an application
158
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Yes, with on-line visa application possibilities
Yes, with the Approved Destination Scheme (only in China)
Yes, no requirement to lodge in person for trusted travelers
Yes, by suggesting application for a Multiple Entry visa where relevant
Other – please explain briefly:
________________________________________

No





15. Do you have any fast track system in place?

Yes (please explain briefly how it works below)

No, we don’t have any fast track system
If you selected 'yes', please explain briefly how the fast track system works.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
16. Do you cooperate with other Schengen consulates, in order to harmonize
the visa application practices?

Yes, to harmonize the list of supporting documents

Yes, to harmonize our practices

No, there is no cooperation
17. In your opinion, what common issues raised by visa applicants in relation
to the Schengen visa could be modified or simplified?

The requirement to lodge the application in person at the Consulate

The deadlines stipulated in the Visa Code for the applicants to receive a
visa decision

The C-visa application fee

The requirement to have a medical insurance at the time of application

The lists of supporting documents (Please specify which particular ones)
______________________________________________

Other (Please specify)
__________________________________________________

No such issues
18. Do you have any other comments which could be relevant for the study?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Thank you for answering the survey and for your contribution to the study!
August 2013
159
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Annex V: Questionnaire – survey of travel agents
Economic Impact Study on simplification of Visa Application to the Schengen
area
Phone survey Travel Agents and Tour Operators
BACKGROUND SECTION
Country where the respondent operates
____________________
Region/City where the respondent operates
____________________
Company name
____________________
Company type

Travel agent __________

Tour operator __________

Both __________
Title of respondent
________________________________________
Phone number
__________
E-mail
__________
SURVEY SECTION
1.
Do you actively market Europe/Schengen area as a destination to your clients?

Yes. If yes, why?
__________________________________________________

No. If no, why?
__________________________________________________
2. What is the main segment of the travel market you work with?
160
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area





3.
Leisure
Business
Business and Leisure
Educational travelling/studying
Other (please specify)
__________
What is the main profile of your clients travelling to Europe?

Fully independent travellers

Visit Friends and Relatives

Group travellers

Family vacation

Business trips

Education/studying

Other (Please specify)
__________
4. What is the average duration of stay for your clients travelling to Europe?
(in number of nights)
____________________
5. Which three of these destinations are hardest for your clients to get a visa to? (1 is
the hardest)
USA
_
Europe/Schengen
_
Asia
_
Australia/New Zealand
_
The United Kingdom
_
Other
_
If "Other" is ranked 1-3
please specify
6. Which three of these destinations are most preferred by your clients? (1 is the most
preferred)
USA
_
Europe/Schengen
_
Asia
_
Australia/New Zealand
_
The United Kingdom
_
Other
_
If "Other" is ranked 1-3
please specify
August 2013
161
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
7. Do you support/provide services to travellers applying for a Schengen visa?

Yes. If yes, which and at what cost?
__________________________________________________

No. If no, why not?
__________________________________________________
8. ONLY CHINA: Have you heard about the Approved Destination Status (ADS)
Scheme?

Yes

No (if no please continue to next page)
If yes, are you part of it?

Yes. How does it work?
__________________________________________________

No
If not, have you tried to gain accreditation to this scheme?

Yes

No - Why not?
__________________________________________________
9 A. How many of your customers booked a trip and applied in 2011 for a Schengen
visa?
____________________
9 B. How many of your customers booked a trip and applied in 2012 for a Schengen
visa?
____________________
10 A. How many customers had to cancel their trip due to slow Schengen visa
processing in 2011?
____________________
10 B. How many customers had to cancel their trip due to slow Schengen visa
processing in 2012?
____________________
11. Did the clients who cancelled due to slow visa processing choose to go somewhere
else? Where (in general)? (world regions)
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
12. What are the most common problems with the Schengen visa, according to your
clients?
162
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area










The requirement to meet in person at the Consulate
The type and nature of required supporting documents
The time necessary for receiving a visa
The uncertainty of outcome of application
The overall cost of the visa
The requirement to have a medical insurance
Difficult to understand the visa requirements
The attitude of the Consular staff
The obligation to make an appointment to lodge an application
Other (please specify)
______________________________
13. According to you, how important are the following factors when your clients
decide on a travel destination?
very
important
important
not important I don't know
Services available




Overall cost




Climate




Visa requirements




Cultural affinity




Safety




Distance/time spent
travelling




Other (please specify below) 



If you selected 'other', please specify here:
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
14. How long in advance do your clients generally make a firm booking?

3 months or more in advance

One to two months in advance

Less than one month in advance
15. If the visa requirements were cancelled and there was a free entry into the
Schengen area, how many more trips do you think you would sell to Europe?

up to 20 % more

between 21% and 50% more

over 50% more

no change
16. If the visa application procedures were simplified by the following measures, how
many more trips do you think you would sell to Europe?
August 2013
163
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
up to 20 %
more
between 21% over 50%
and 50% more more
No change
Online application procedure 



Shorter time to receive a
visa




Lower cost to receive a visa 



Easier access to
Consulate(s)




Less documentary/

administrative requirements



Better information from
Consulates




Better service from Consular

staff



Multi-Entry Visas rather than

single entry visa



A visa with longer validity




Possibility for visa on arrival 



17. What do you think are the most important aspects to improve in the Schengen
visa procedures, in order to facilitate more travel to the Schengen countries ?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
18. Do you have any other comments which could be relevant for the study?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
This is the end of the survey. Thank you for taking the time to respond to our
questions.
FOR INTERVIEWER: Please note down any interesting comments or findings from the
interview that did not get reflected in the previous questions.
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
164
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Annex VI: Data sources for the EIA and CBA
Economic Impact Assessment

Travellers-survey; used for:
Number of travellers who responded that they would travel more or a lot
more to the Schengen area, given the implementation of different visa
facilitation measures
Statistics on purpose of trip

Travel agents-survey; used for:
Qualification and verification of results from travellers-survey

DG Home (2013): Visa Statistics for 2012; used for:
Division of traveller on destination countries
Division of additional travellers for target countries
Calculation of travellers lost per target country (rejection rates)

UNWTO (2013): Compendium of statistical yearbook; used for:
Average spending per target country

OECD (2010): OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2010; used for:
Tourism Satellite Accounts for Member States (division on sectors and
Member States)

WTTC (2012): Travel & Tourism Economic Impact Report Series; used for:
Division on direct, indirect and induced GDP effects
Employment effects
Cost-benefit analysis

GHK (2013): Study for an impact assessment on the Schengen Visa Code
(forthcoming)
Consulates costs for visa processing
August 2013
165
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Annex VII: Additional tables for the economic impact analysis
Table 59: Travellers lost due to current visa practices divided on Member State, (in 1 000)
China
India
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Ukraine
17
12
82
13
5
Belgium
9
35
13
3
4
8
72
Czech Republic
7
7
258
11
2
62
347
37
Austria
27
Total for
Member State
156
11
8
10
1
2
5
Estonia
1
0
86
0
0
11
98
Finland
8
6
885
0
1
12
912
France
151
56
266
93
25
37
628
Germany
129
87
268
56
24
84
647
12
5
442
5
6
108
579
Hungary
8
2
59
3
1
114
186
Iceland
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
755
Denmark
Greece
146
62
425
56
28
37
Latvia
0
0
81
0
0
10
91
Lithuania
0
1
109
0
0
21
131
Luxembourg
2
0
4
0
0
0
5
Italy
1
0
16
1
0
0
18
Netherlands
22
33
38
6
12
22
132
Norway
11
5
31
0
2
5
55
Poland
6
4
176
2
1
374
563
Portugal
3
3
22
1
4
5
39
Slovakia
1
0
12
0
0
37
50
Slovenia
0
1
15
0
0
8
24
Spain
33
24
620
16
12
65
771
Sweden
15
12
42
3
3
8
83
Switzerland
51
87
42
17
9
12
217
646
450
4 002
286
142
1 071
6 597
Malta
Overall Schengen
Source: Travellers-survey, DG Home (Visa statistics) and own calculations
166
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 60: Annual lost spending of travellers per Member State and target country, "Low" scenario (in million EUR)
China
India
Russia
14
9
Belgium
7
Czech Republic
6
Denmark
9
Estonia
1
Austria
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Ukraine
Total
48
12
4
5
91
27
8
3
3
1
49
6
150
9
2
11
183
6
6
1
1
1
24
0
50
0
0
2
53
Finland
7
4
515
0
1
2
529
France
122
43
155
82
19
7
427
Germany
104
67
156
49
18
15
409
10
4
257
5
5
19
300
Hungary
7
2
34
2
1
20
66
Iceland
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
118
48
247
50
21
7
490
Latvia
0
0
47
0
0
2
49
Lithuania
0
1
63
0
0
4
68
Luxembourg
1
0
2
0
0
0
4
Malta
1
0
10
1
0
0
11
18
25
22
5
9
4
83
Norway
9
4
18
0
1
1
34
Poland
5
3
102
2
1
66
179
Portugal
2
2
13
1
3
1
23
Slovakia
1
0
7
0
0
7
15
Greece
Italy
Netherlands
0
0
9
0
0
1
11
Spain
27
19
361
14
9
12
441
Sweden
12
10
24
3
2
1
52
Switzerland
Overall
Schengen
42
67
24
15
7
2
156
523
345
2 327
253
107
189
3 745
Slovenia
Source: Travellers-survey, DG Home (Visa statistics) and own calculation
August 2013
167
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 61: Annual lost spending of travellers per Member State and target country, "High" scenario (in million EUR)
China
India
Russia
Austria
63
44
Belgium
32
Czech Republic
25
Denmark
Estonia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Ukraine
107
58
13
128
17
12
27
336
47
42
28
13
2
0
112
Total
11
295
11
3
204
5
24
464
3
4
2
93
0
0
4
119
Finland
30
21
1.152
1
2
5
1.210
France
557
206
346
405
67
15
1.595
Germany
475
320
348
244
63
33
1.484
Greece
45
19
575
24
17
43
723
Hungary
30
7
76
11
4
45
174
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
540
228
553
245
75
15
1.655
Latvia
2
0
105
0
0
4
111
Lithuania
2
3
141
0
0
8
154
Luxembourg
7
0
5
0
0
0
11
Malta
2
1
21
5
0
0
30
Netherlands
82
120
50
25
33
9
318
Norway
40
20
41
2
4
2
109
Poland
24
15
229
7
4
148
427
Portugal
10
12
29
7
11
2
70
Slovakia
2
2
15
0
1
15
35
Iceland
Italy
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Overall
Schengen
1
2
20
0
0
3
26
122
89
807
68
33
26
1.145
56
46
54
13
7
3
179
190
318
54
75
23
5
665
2.384
1.653
5.207
1.252
379
423
11.297
Source: Travellers-survey, DG Home (Visa statistics) and own calculation
168
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 62: Annual lost spending by travellers per Member State and sector, "Low" scenario (million EUR)
Austria
18
22
18
2
9
Goods,
distribution
margins, services
22
Belgium
10
12
10
1
5
12
Czech Republic
37
37
23
1
5
81
2
3
1
2
1
14
13
4
10
4
2
19
Finland
75
101
180
0
32
140
France
112
110
94
4
108
0
Germany
23
101
131
0
14
139
Greece
59
73
61
7
29
71
Hungary
17
10
9
1
6
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
Italy
96
119
100
12
47
117
Latvia
10
12
10
1
5
12
Lithuania
Accommodation
services
Denmark
Estonia***
Iceland
Food and beverage
serving services
Passenger
transport services
Other tourism
services**
Travel services*
13
17
14
2
7
16
Luxembourg
1
1
1
0
0
1
Malta
2
3
2
0
1
3
20
22
34
0
7
0
Netherlands
4
6
8
0
1
15
33
27
16
4
13
86
Portugal
7
8
7
0
1
0
Slovakia
3
3
2
0
1
6
Norway
Poland
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Overall Schengen
2
1
1
0
2
4
109
121
56
30
11
113
3
13
6
0
3
27
33
27
33
1
7
56
701
853
827
73
316
975
Source: Travellers-survey, DG Home (Visa statistics), OECD 2010
Note "*": Travel services incl. travel agency, tour operator and tourist guide services.
Note "**": Other tourism services include cultural services, recreation, other entertainment services and other tourism services.
Note "***": Division for Estonia is made on added value from tourism and not direct spending.
August 2013
169
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Note: For Austria, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta a weighted average of the distribution is applied
170
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 63: Annual lost spending by travellers per Member State and sector, "High" scenario (million EUR)
Accommodation
services
Food and beverage
serving services
Passenger
transport services
Other tourism
services**
Travel services*
Goods,
distribution
margins, services
70
Austria
58
72
60
7
28
Belgium
40
50
41
5
20
49
Czech Republic
93
94
59
1
12
205
8
13
4
8
3
56
30
9
23
9
5
42
Finland
171
232
412
1
74
320
France
420
410
349
14
402
0
84
367
476
0
51
506
142
176
147
17
70
172
45
27
23
2
17
60
0
0
1
0
0
0
324
402
336
39
160
393
Latvia
22
27
22
3
11
26
Lithuania
Denmark
Estonia***
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
30
38
31
4
15
37
Luxembourg
2
3
2
0
1
3
Malta
6
7
6
1
3
7
Netherlands
77
85
128
0
26
0
Norway
14
18
25
1
3
48
Poland
78
65
39
10
31
205
Portugal
20
24
21
0
3
1
Slovakia
6
7
5
0
2
15
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Overall Schengen
5
3
2
0
5
10
284
313
147
78
28
294
9
45
22
0
12
92
139
114
141
3
30
238
2.108
2.602
2.523
205
1.010
2.849
Source: Travellers-survey, DG Home (Visa statistics), OECD 2010
Note "*": Travel services incl. travel agency, tour operator and tourist guide services.
Note "**": Other tourism services include cultural services, recreation, other entertainment services and other tourism services.
Note "***": Division for Estonia is made on added value from tourism and not direct spending.
August 2013
171
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Note: For Austria, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta a weighted average of the distribution is applied
172
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 64: Potential increase in number of travellers per Member State, (in 1,000)
Austria
3. Less
documentary
requirements
2. Online
Application
1. Visa-free
156
109
5. Longer
Validity
4. MEV
96
125
6. On Arrival
113
114
72
52
47
55
53
52
347
242
213
286
254
256
Denmark
37
25
22
28
26
26
Estonia
98
68
60
82
72
73
Finland
912
641
557
771
682
697
France
628
440
377
489
451
457
Germany
647
453
395
506
466
465
Greece
579
403
355
479
424
427
Hungary
186
126
115
147
130
125
1
0
0
0
0
0
755
529
456
601
549
553
91
63
56
76
67
68
131
91
81
110
97
98
5
4
3
4
4
4
18
13
11
15
14
14
132
95
84
103
96
95
Belgium
Czech Republic
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
55
38
33
44
40
40
563
379
350
444
391
376
Portugal
39
28
24
32
29
29
Slovakia
50
34
31
39
35
33
Norway
Poland
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Overall Schengen
24
17
15
20
17
17
771
541
472
639
570
577
83
58
50
65
60
60
217
155
137
165
157
156
6 597
4 605
4 042
5 324
4 798
4 810
Source: Travellers-survey, DG Home (Visa statistics), and own calculations
August 2013
173
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 65: Total annual spending by additional travellers per policy option and sector, "Low" scenario (million EUR)
Accommodation services
Food and beverage serving
services
701
493
3. Less
documentary
requirements
427
853
601
Passenger transport services
827
73
2. Online
Application
1. Visa free
Total
6. On Arrival
564
513
519
520
686
625
632
583
504
665
606
613
51
44
59
53
54
316
223
192
252
230
233
975
685
596
788
715
721
3 745
2 636
2 284
3 014
2 742
2 772
Travel services
Other tourism services
Goods, distribution margins,
services
5. Longer
Validity
4. MEV
Source: Travellers-survey, DG Home (Visa statistics), UNWTO 2012, OECD 2010 and own calculations
Note: Other tourism services include cultural services, recreation, other entertainment services and other tourism services. Travel services incl. travel agency, tour operator and tourist guide
services.
Note: For Austria, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta weighted averages of the distribution is applied. Division for Estonia is made on added value from tourism
and not direct spending.
Table 66: Total annual spending by additional travellers per policy option and sector, "High" scenario (million EUR)
Accommodation services
Food and beverage serving
services
2108
1487
3. Less
documentary
requirements
1283
2602
1835
Passenger transport services
2523
205
1. Visa free
Travel services
Other tourism services
Goods, distribution margins,
services
Total
2. Online
Application
5. Longer
Validity
4. MEV
6. On Arrival
1654
1529
1544
1582
2037
1886
1904
1781
1535
1976
1831
1848
144
125
163
150
151
1.010
712
610
782
727
736
2.849
2.005
1.738
2.248
2.071
2.084
11.297
7.965
6.873
8.860
8.193
8.267
Source: Travellers-survey, DG Home (Visa statistics), UNWTO 2012, OECD 2010 and own calculations
Note: Other tourism services include cultural services, recreation, other entertainment services and other tourism services. Travel services incl. travel agency, tour operator and tourist guide
services.
Note: For Austria, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta weighted averages of the distribution is applied. Division for Estonia is made on added value from tourism
and not direct spending.
174
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 67: Total additional annual spending by additional travellers per Member State and policy option, "Low" scenario
(million EUR)
3. Less
documentary
requirements
2. Online
Application
1. Visa free
5. Longer
Validity
4. MEV
6. On Arrival
Austria
91
64
56
72
66
Belgium
49
36
32
37
36
36
183
129
112
152
135
138
24
17
14
18
17
17
Czech Republic
Denmark
67
Estonia
53
37
32
44
39
40
Finland
529
372
322
447
396
404
France
427
301
255
328
306
311
Germany
409
288
248
317
295
297
Greece
300
210
183
250
222
226
66
45
40
52
47
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
490
344
294
386
356
359
Latvia
49
34
30
41
37
37
Lithuania
68
48
42
57
51
52
4
2
2
3
3
2
Malta
11
8
7
9
8
9
Netherlands
83
60
53
64
61
60
Norway
34
23
20
27
25
24
179
123
110
145
129
127
Portugal
23
17
14
18
17
17
Slovakia
15
10
9
12
10
10
Slovenia
11
8
7
9
8
8
441
311
270
365
327
333
52
37
32
41
38
38
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Luxembourg
Poland
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Overall Schengen
156
112
99
117
113
112
3 745
2 636
2 284
3 014
2 742
2 772
Source: Travellers-survey, DG Home (Visa statistics), and own calculations
August 2013
175
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 68: Total additional annual spending by additional travellers per Member State and policy option, "High" scenario
(million EUR)
Austria
295
210
3. Less
documentary
requirements
180
Belgium
204
150
Czech Republic
464
328
93
Estonia
119
Finland
France
Germany
2. Online
Application
1. Visa free
5. Longer
Validity
4. MEV
6. On Arrival
228
212
217
136
154
151
149
285
380
341
350
64
55
69
66
64
83
72
100
89
90
1.210
850
738
1.020
905
923
1.595
1.123
947
1.195
1.128
1.151
1.484
1.047
897
1.121
1.061
1.066
Greece
723
508
441
597
534
542
Hungary
174
119
105
137
124
122
2
1
1
2
1
1
1.655
1.160
986
1.266
1.186
1.192
Latvia
111
77
67
93
82
84
Lithuania
117
Denmark
Iceland
Italy
154
108
94
130
115
Luxembourg
11
8
6
9
8
8
Malta
30
21
18
24
22
23
Netherlands
318
230
202
241
232
229
Norway
109
75
64
84
79
77
Poland
427
293
263
343
306
302
Portugal
70
51
44
55
52
52
Slovakia
35
24
22
28
25
25
26
18
16
22
19
19
1.145
809
700
933
844
858
Sweden
179
126
109
137
130
128
Switzerland
665
478
421
494
481
477
11.297
7.965
6.873
8.860
8.193
8.267
Slovenia
Spain
Overall Schengen
Source: Travellers-survey, DG Home (Visa statistics), and own calculations
176
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 69: Contribution to GDP, (million EUR)
1. Visa free
2. Online
Application
3. Less
documentary
requirements
5. Longer
Validity
4. MEV
6. On Arrival
Direct effect*
Low
3 745
2 636
2 284
3 014
2 742
2 772
High
11 297
7 965
6 873
8 860
8 193
8 267
Low
-1 925
-1 354
-1 174
-1 549
-1 409
-1 424
High
-5 806
-4 093
-3 532
-4 553
-4 210
-4 249
Low
1 821
1 281
1 110
1 465
1 333
1 347
High
5 492
3 872
3 341
4 307
3 983
4 019
Low
1 769
1 245
1 079
1 424
1 295
1 309
High
5 337
3 763
3 247
4 186
3 871
3 906
Low
-343
-241
-209
-276
-251
-254
High
-1 035
-730
-630
-812
-751
-757
Purchase by tourism providers incl. imported goods
Direct Contribution to GDP
Supply chain effects
Imported goods from indirect spending
Induced effects
Low
962
677
587
775
705
712
High
2 903
2 047
1 766
2 277
2 106
2 125
Low
2 389
1 681
1 457
1 922
1 749
1 768
High
7 205
5 080
4 383
5 651
5 226
5 273
Indirect and Induced Contribution to GDP
August 2013
177
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Total Contribution to GDP
Low
High
178
4 209
12 697
2 962
8 952
2 567
7 724
August 2013
3 388
9 958
3 082
9 208
3 115
9 292
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Annex VIII: Case examples – visa facilitation measures
from PL and CZ
With a view to addressing the issues related to the requirement to meet in person and
the type and nature of the requested supporting documents, it is particularly relevant
to look towards Poland and their so-called e-voucher scheme, and the Czech Republic
and their system of accreditation of travel agents. The two initiatives are briefly
described in the text boxes.
Czech Republic: accredited travel agents
This cooperation was introduced by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Czech
diplomatic missions in May 2011 and allows the travel agencies to be involved in
the visa process. The scheme is based on Art 45 of the Visa code and applies
only to Travel Agents (TA) and not to other intermediaries. The accreditation
procedure consists of a security check on the basis of which the TAs receive the
accreditation (for one year, subject to renewal). As a result, they can lodge a
visa application on behalf of the applicant. At the beginning of the cooperation
with the TA, there is a meeting between its representatives and the consulate,
and the TA staff who will handle the process receive training.
The system is implemented in 28 consulates in countries with a high number of
visa applications (currently 12 countries, among others Russia, Ukraine and
Saudi Arabia and 396 accredited TAs). In countries where the system is applied,
up to 80% of the applications are processed via the travel agencies.
The advantage of the cooperation with accredited travel agents is that it enables
the consulates to process a larger number of visa applications and facilitates
submitting the visa applications to the applicants, as it waives the requirement for
personal presence of the applicant when submitting the application.
The system generally works well but has the one disadvantage that accredited travel
agents are not permitted to collect biometric data. So in countries where this is rolled
out (currently Saudi Arabia and in the future everywhere), first-time applicants still
have to meet at the consulate to provide the biometry. For subsequent applications,
this is not necessary.
August 2013
179
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry and
on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Poland: e-voucher scheme
This scheme was initiated by the Polish Chamber of Tourism in 2012 and as
such can be seen as a bottom-up initiative. The scheme was negotiated with
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and is used for Russia, Ukraine and
Belarus – countries particularly important for Poland from a tourism point of
view as together they generate about 25% of the tourist flow to Poland.
The Chamber of Tourism issues certificates to Tour Operators (TO) for a
period of 12 months (eligible for renewal). The basic condition for the TO to
receive the certificate is that the company operated in the tourism industry
and has been registered for 12 months; the second is that the TO staff
undergo training (on the Schengen visa rules/procedures) with a Polish
consulate in the country where they operate.
Once certified, the TO can issue e-vouchers to visa applicants (tourists) who
have purchased travel packages. The e-voucher is not an e-visa. It replaces
some supporting documentation that would otherwise be required in a visa
application. More specifically, it replaces 5 documents:
 Proof of stay
 Hotel booking
 Proof of payment
 Bank certificate
 Statement from employer
The e-vouchers are issued on behalf of the consulate and attached to the visa
application in printed form. There is an electronic system operated by the
Chamber that contains information about the issued e-vouchers. The consular
bodies, border guards and MFA have access to the system and can check
information in it.
The results of the Polish e-voucher scheme are hard to measure, but based on
information from the Chamber of Tourism, the major advantage is that this scheme
shortens the time needed to obtain a visa. Before it took up to a month to receive
a visa and people had to apply with the whole set of supporting documents and stand
in long queues. Now, according to TOs and the Chamber, it takes approx. 5 days from
going to the TO to obtaining the visa. This is also a result of the fact that the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs now has 40 external partners in Russia who operate outsourcing visa
centres and can collect all documents and send them to the consulate. This way the
travellers do not have to go to the consulates which are often only in the big cities.
These centres are also used by the certified TOs.
It is not known yet how the biometric data collection will affect these practices, but
the trend is to outsource as much as possible.
For the tourism industry, the advantage is that visas are no longer considered an
obstacle. The chamber says that as a result of these visa facilitation efforts, Poland is
perceived as a friendlier tourist destination.
In 2012, there was a huge increase in tourists from these markets compared to other
markets: Ukraine and Russia recorded 30 % growth in terms of tourist arrivals, and
Belarus 25 %. The overall increase in tourist arrivals was 12 %, so the share of
these three countries was a significant part of it. However, it is difficult to say for sure
180
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
whether it is only the e-voucher scheme that this growth can be attributed to, as the
UEFA EURO 2012 must also have been a factor.
76
76
All information on the accredited travel agents system in CZ and the e-voucher scheme in Poland has
been collected through interviews with relevant stakeholders.
August 2013
181
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Annex IX: Table overview of data for economic impact model and CBA
Source
Type of
data
Weakness
182
Expenditure
Visa
statistics
amount
of
travellers
Tourist
sectors
Visa costs
MacroEconomic
impact
Travellerssurvey
General
CBA
Growth
factor
UNWTO
Compendium
of statistical
yearbook, US
Office of travel
and tourism
industries, Visit
Denmark,
Atlas of the
brands of
Spain
Average
spending per
traveller per
trip
DG Home Visa
statistics
OECD
Tourism
satellite
accounts
(TSA)
GHK impact
assessment
WTTC: The
economic
contribution of
Travel &
Tourism
Travellerssurvey
European
Commissions
guideline on
CBA
UNWTO
Tourism
towards 2030
Statistics on
visas issued to
Schengen
Inbound
traveller
spending
on tourism
sectors
Consulate
costs related to
visa processing
(cost per visa)
Economic
contribution to
the national
economy from
travel and
tourism
Social
discount rate,
marginal cost
of public funds
Growth factors
for geographic
regions to
Europe
UNWTO figures
are not specific
for Schengen
and represent
all
international
travel from the
target country.
US figures
Does not
indicate amount
of travels per
multiple entry
visa, does not
illustrate
reasons for
visas not issued
Not
specific for
the target
countries,
but by all
inbound
travellers
Few
respondents,
unclear on
implementation
costs of
facilitation
measures
Not available
for all
Schengen
countries,
wherefore
weighted
averages is
applied, it can
be hard to
Impact of
facilitation
measure,
purpose of
travel,
average
amount of
travels per
year
Small portion
of the travel
market from
the target
countries, only
aimed at
previous
travellers,
does not
General
economic
assessment of
large
economies is
uncertain
Not country
specific, and
to all of
Europe in
general
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
does not
represent
spending in
Schengen
Strength
Specific
spending from
target
countries,
represents all
types of travel,
US figures are
relevant in
terms of
Schengen as a
long haul
destination
Other
sources
Few sources
exist where
data are
specific on
target
countries.
Alternatively
general
spending by all
travellers
(worldwide)
could have
been used.
August 2013
Indicates travel
patterns,
country division
of travellers,
number of
travellers based
upon single
entry visas and
multiple entry
visas, does not
overestimate
the amount of
travellers
Arrivals from
target countries
could have
been used,
however this
increases the
chance of
counting the
same traveller
several times
due to internal
travel in
Schengen
directly
measure only
the effect of
travel and
tourism
capture nontravellers
Detailed
information on
travel
patterns,
effect on
facilitation
measures by
current
travellers to
Schengen and
potential firsttime travellers
to Schengen
No other
dependable
sources where
available
Specific
spending
in tourism
sectors by
inbound
travellers
Costs per visa
is easily
applicable, visa
costs are
adjusted
according to
administration
costs and are
therefore
flexible
Specific data
on the
impacts on
GDP and
Employment
for the
Schengen
states
TSAs are
available
for certain
countries,
but not
reliable,
EUROSTAT
indicates
the size of
tourism
sectors,
however
spending
by
inbound
travellers
is not
captured
No other
dependable
sources where
available
No other
dependable
sources where
available
General
guidelines
provide
comparability
Reliable
source,
growth factors
for all
geographic
regions which
the target
countries
represent
National CBA
guidelines
would provide
an
unbeneficial
complexity to
the model
Mainly
historical
trends where
available
(European
Travel
Commission),
these do not
represent
forecasted
growth
183
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Annex X: Contribution to employment figures
Table 70 contribution to employment in FTEEs for the "conservative" spending scenario
Baseline
Growth in FTEE's from previous year
1. Visa free
Growth in FTEE's from previous year
2. Online Application
Growth in FTEE's from previous year
3. Less documentary requirements
Growth in FTEE's from previous year
4. MEV
Growth in FTEE's from previous year
5. Longer Validity
Growth in FTEE's from previous year
6. On Arrival
Growth in FTEE's from previous year
Year 1 Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Cumulative increase
Pct. increase year 1-5
53.578 55.139 56.755
58.426 60.156
284.055
12%
1.561
1.615
1.671
1.730
6.578
91.021 93.669 96.408
99.242 102.175
482.517
12%
2.648
2.739
2.834
2.933
11.154
79.929 82.254 84.660
87.149 89.724
423.716
12%
2.325
2.405
2.489
2.576
9.795
76.412 78.632 80.929
83.306 85.765
405.045
12%
2.221
2.297
2.377
2.459
9.353
83.714 86.126 88.621
91.201 93.871
443.533
12%
2.412
2.495
2.580
2.669
10.157
80.994 83.345 85.777
88.293 90.896
429.305
12%
2.351
2.432
2.516
2.603
9.901
81.288 83.638 86.068
88.582 91.183
430.760
12%
2.350
2.430
2.514
2.601
9.894
Note: The above table shows the contribution to employment in FTEEs for the conservative spending scenario.
Note: 1 job is defined as the full time employment equivalent (FTEE) of the work/output of 1 employee over the timespan of 1 year.
Note: All figures for the scenarios include the figures from the baseline.
184
August 2013
European Commission
Study on the economic impact of short stay visa facilitation on the tourism industry
and on the overall economies of EU Member States being part of the Schengen Area
Table 71 contribution to employment in FTEE's for the "probable" spending scenario
Baseline
Growth in FTEE's from previous year
1. Visa free
Growth in FTEE's from previous year
2. Online Application
Growth in FTEE's from previous year
3. Less documentary requirements
Growth in FTEE's from previous year
4. MEV
Growth in FTEE's from previous year
5. Longer Validity
Growth in FTEE's from previous year
6. On Arrival
Growth in FTEE's from previous year
Year 1 Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5 Cumulative increase
Pct. increase year 1-5
159.108 164.435 169.970 175.724 181.705
850.941
14%
5.327
5.536
5.753
5.981
22.597
272.058 281.131 290.557 300.352 310.531
1.454.628
14%
9.073
9.426
9.795 10.180
38.474
238.739 246.699 254.970 263.564 272.496
1.276.468
14%
7.961
8.271
8.594
8.932
33.757
227.820 235.412 243.299 251.495 260.012
1.218.038
14%
7.592
7.887
8.195
8.517
32.192
247.693 255.877 264.377 273.208 282.383
1.323.538
14%
8.184
8.500
8.831
9.175
34.690
241.021 249.044 257.380 266.041 275.042
1.288.529
14%
8.023
8.335
8.661
9.001
34.021
241.767 249.774 258.091 266.732 275.710
1.292.074
14%
8.007
8.317
8.641
8.978
33.944
Note: The above table shows the contribution to employment in FTEE's for the "probable" spending scenario.
Note: 1 job is defined as the full time employment equivalent (FTEE) of the work/output of 1 employee over the timespan of 1 year.
Note: All figures for the scenarios include the figures from the baseline.
August 2013
185
Study on the economic impact of short
and on the overall economies of EU Mem
Annex XI: Copy of all tables from EIA and CBA in
Excel format
(Attached in a separate document)
186
August 2013