Kiri

DEPLOYTOUR TASK 5.3 Interministerial Committee Project Questionnaire
To collect information on regulatory frameworks, existing tools, and national perspectives related to data collection, sharing, and governance in the tourism sector within the context of the European Tourism Data Space (ETDS).
Kui edastate selle vormi, kogub see automaatselt teie andmeid (nt nime ja meiliaadressi), välja arvatud juhul, kui sisestate selle ise.
Nõutav
CONTACT SECTION 
1.Country
Estonia
2.Organization
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications
3.Email
[email protected]
4.Contact person
Aleksandr Michelson
5.Phone
+37255529176
6.1.1 Does your country have a comprehensive national regulatory framework specifically governing data governance and digital transformation?
• Yes, comprehensive framework exists
• Yes, but limited in scope
• Currently under development
• No framework exists
• Don't know
7.1.2 Please identify the competent authorities (ministries, agencies, departments) responsible for digitalization and data management in the tourism sector: Open response (brief)
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications (Department of Business and Industry); Estonian Business and Innovation Agency (Visit Estonia); Statistics Estonia.
8.1.3 Are there national digital strategies that explicitly include the tourism sector or tourism data utilization?
Yes, tourism-specific digital strategy exists
Yes, tourism included in broader digital strategy
No specific mention of tourism
No national digital strategy exists
Don't know
9.1.3.1 Please specify only tourism related strategies, providing publication year, and implementing authority: Open response
Estonian Tourism Long Vision 2025-2035 (https://www.mkm.ee/turism2035). In the Estonian Data and Artificial Intelligence White Paper, data spaces and data economy are identified as one of the key development directions. Due to Estonia’s small size, the development of the data space and data economy ecosystem favors the use of unified solutions as much as possible. Therefore, the actions outlined in the White Paper are also largely applicable to tourism data.
10.1.4 What is the current maturity level of your country's tourism data infrastructure?
• Very advanced (integrated national systems)
• Advanced (multiple coordinated systems)
• Developing (fragmented systems)
• Basic (limited digital infrastructure)
• Don't know
11.2.1 What are the primary legal sources (national laws, regulations, EU directives) applicable to tourism data collection and sharing in your country? Open response (specify all normative references within the text)
Tourism Act (https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/ee/528072023003/consolide/current), chapter 4; Official Statistics Act (https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/522032022003/consolide); Regulation (EU) No 692/2011(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32011R0692&qid=1754983493807); Directive (EU) 2021/514 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (DAC7); Regulation (EU) 2024/1028 on data collection and sharing relating to short-term accommodation rental services (Regulation - EU - 2024/1028 - EN - EUR-Lex) (important to note, that Estonia does not currently implement this regulation); indirectly also, regarding the disclosure of information held by the state – Public Information Act (Public Information Act–Riigi Teataja).
12.2.2 How would you assess the clarity and enforceability of these legal provisions regarding tourism data governance? Scale from 1 to 5 (1 = very unclear/weak enforcement / 5 = very clear/strong enforcement)
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
13.2.3 Do specific legal constraints (GDPR, sectoral laws, Reg EU 2011/692 – MST UN Tourism, competition law) create barriers to tourism data sharing?
• Yes, significant barriers exist
• Yes, but manageable with proper procedures
• Minor barriers only
• No significant barriers
• Other
14.2.3 If you answered other in the previous question, please specify the main legal barriers: Open response
Barriers exist (GDPR, sectoral rules, competition law), but are solvable. The main issue is the lack of standardised procedures/templates—causing ad-hoc compliance, especially for smaller actors. Standard guidance and agreements would make sharing smoother.
15.2.4 Is there a designated data protection authority that specifically addresses tourism data governance issues
• Yes, tourism-specific authority
• Yes, general data protection authority with tourism expertise
• General data protection authority only
• No specific authority
• Don't know
16.3.1 Which processes are you currently using for tourism data collection and sharing (e.g., visitor flows, accommodation bookings, events,)? Open response
In 2025, Visit Estonia has made tourism information publicly accessible by publishing the national tourism information system datasets as open data, enabling transparent and reusable access to over 8000 records on attractions, events, and services via the Estonian open data portal (https://andmed.eesti.ee/datasets/turismitoodete-ja-teenuste-andmed-puhkaeestis.ee-ja-visitestonia.com-eesti-riiklikus-turismiinfosusteemis). // We currently use the meetings.ee platform to collect and moderate data on conferences held in Estonia. Data entry is performed by registered users who are linked to specific organizations, and includes details such as event name, date, location, format, venue, number of participants, share of international attendees, organizer, and event type. Entries can be submitted individually via a form or in bulk using Excel import. Since the same event may be entered multiple times, a regional moderator reviews all submissions and removes duplicates. The system does not generate summaries automatically and is considered outdated by current standards. Although meetings.ee is a nationwide tool, it is still managed and funded by the City of Tallinn. Data entry is voluntary, and because not all organizers participate, the overall dataset remains incomplete. Manual data cleaning is time-consuming, and frequent turnover among data submitters adds to the challenge. // In the near future, accommodation statistics will be submitted directly from property management software via a machine interface (automated reporting where data required for reporting are captured from the information system and transmitted directly to the relevant authority). This is made possible by a newly approved taxonomy developed by Statistics Estonia, but implementation depends on software providers' development timelines and their interest in developments as this is voluntary basis (enterprises will still be able to submit data in eSTAT). The first pilot projects have already started, and technical materials are available for developers (Data-based reporting | Statistikaamet: https://stat.ee/en/reporting-30). // Statistics Estonia collects and analyses tourism with the aim to determine the economic situation in Estonia. See also tourism, accommodation and food service (https://www.stat.ee/en/find-statistics/statistics-theme/economy/tourism-accommodation-and-food-service) and the tourism industry dashboard (https://juhtimislauad.stat.ee/en/tourism-1). More detailed data have been published in the statistical database (https://andmed.stat.ee/en/stat/majandus__turism-ja-majutus__majutus). // Eesti Pank produces statistics on foreign travel because one task of the central bank is to compile the balance of payments for Estonia, which includes exports and imports of travel services. More detailed information can be found on the Eesti Pank website under International travel statistics (https://statistika.eestipank.ee/#/en/p/MAKSEBIL_JA_INVPOS/1410). // Experimental tourism statistics from Eurostat are also available, though not yet published in Estonia’s public databases; currently, they can be accessed directly from Eurostat’s database for country-level information.
17.3.2 Which institutional/legal framework for tourism data sharing by private operators is needed?
• Mandatory by law with penalties for non-compliance
• Mandatory by law but weak enforcement
• Voluntary but with strong incentives (tax benefits, grants)
• Voluntary with limited incentives
• Completely voluntary
18.3.3 In your country which data types are most commonly publicly available ? (Multiple answers possible)
• Supply-side statistics (capacity, occupancy of accommodation facilities)
• Demand-side statistics (socio-demographic characteristics, types of travel and travel behavior of visitors, etc.)
• Tourism expenditure data
• Event and attraction visitor numbers
• Transportation data (flights, trains, car rentals)
• Digital footprint data (websites, apps usage)
• Sustainability/environmental impact data
19.3.4 Who grants access to tourism data publicly available? (Multiple answers possible)
• National tourism authorities
• Regional/local tourism boards
• EU institutions
• International organizations
• Private tourism operators
• Research institutions
• General public (open data)
• Data remains internal to collecting authority
20.4.1 What are the main technical barriers limiting interoperability with third parties? (Multiple answers possible)
• Incompatible data formats and standards
• Lack of APIs or data exchange protocols
• Insufficient IT infrastructure
• Different data quality levels
• Language and terminology differences
21.4.2 What are the main legal/regulatory barriers limiting interoperability with third parties? (Multiple answers possible)
• Data protection and privacy regulations
• National security restrictions
• Commercial confidentiality requirements
• Lack of data sharing agreements
• Intellectual property concerns
22.4.3 Does your country have bilateral or multilateral agreements for tourism data sharing?
• Yes, with EU countries
• Yes, with non-EU countries
• Yes, both EU and non-EU
• No agreements exist
23.5.1 What are the primary obstacles to establishing a European Tourism Data Space (ETDS)? (Multiple answers possible)
• Lack of common technical standards
• Privacy and data protection concerns
• Insufficient incentives for private sector participation
• Resistance to change from stakeholders
• Legal uncertainty and regulatory gaps
• Inadequate funding for infrastructure development
• Lack of skilled personnel
• Competition between national systems
24.5.2 Which actions do you consider most critical for promoting greater regulatory and technical harmonization at the European level? Open response (brief)
Encourage stronger engagement of both data users and providers in Eurostat’s work and WGs, with a clear feedback loop on how submissions are used and which policy outcomes they inform. Prioritise practical, low-barrier tools for data owners—e.g., “ETDS-approved” plug-and-play apps (including simple Excel add-ins and lightweight connectors) that make sharing easy and automate compliance. Given uneven digital maturity, focus on tools and supported onboarding (templates, helpdesk, training) so SMEs can participate. Harmonisation will advance fastest through widely adopted, usable tools and platforms—not abstract standards alone.
25.5.3 What governance model would be most effective for the European Tourism Data Space?
• Centralized EU-managed system
• Federated system with national nodes
• Hybrid model (centralized standards, decentralized implementation)
• Market-driven approach with minimal regulation
26.5.4 Would your organization be willing to participate in working groups or technical committees to contribute to the ETDS framework definition?
• Yes, actively participate
• Yes, but limited participation
• Depends on the modalities and time commitment
• No, not interested
27.5.5 If your organization is a National Administration (i.e. Tourism Minister or competent authority), would your organization be willing to participate in the Interministerial committee of the EU Member states?
• yes
• no
• further information are needed
28.5.6 What timeline would you consider realistic for implementing a functional ETDS?
• Within 2 years
• 3-5 years
• 5-10 years
• More than 10 years
• Don't know
29.6.1 How important is tourism data for your country's economic planning and policy-making? Scale from 1 to 5 (1 = not important / 5 = extremely important)
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
30.6.2 What is the estimated annual budget allocated to tourism data collection and management in your organization?
• Less than €100,000
• €100,000 - €500,000
• €500,000 - €1,000,000
• €1,000,000 - €5,000,000
• More than €5,000,000
• Don't know
31.6.3 What return on investment do you expect from participating in the ETDS? (Multiple answers possible)
• Improved policy-making capabilities
• Enhanced tourism competitiveness
• Better crisis management and resilience
• Cost savings from shared infrastructure
• All of the above
32.Additional comments and suggestions
(1) As a comment to “1.4 What is the current maturity level of your country's tourism data infrastructure?”: Estonia’s central infrastructure (the X-Road) is highly advanced and is also used in the context of public sector tourism data. However, the challenge lies in making this infrastructure sufficiently accessible and easy to use for smaller stakeholders. (2) As a comment on "4.3 Does your country have bilateral or multilateral agreements for tourism data sharing?": Estonia has a bilateral agreement with Eurostat for sharing accommodation platform statistics. There are currently no comparable multilateral data-sharing agreements in place. (3) As a comment on “5.6 What timeline would you consider realistic for implementing a functional ETDS?”: A “functional ETDS” shouldn’t be the objective on its own. The target should be an ETDS with a critical mass of data providers and users. A technical platform can be stood up relatively quickly, but building a real data space—onboarding participants, aligning governance, and establishing trust—takes longer and depends on engagement, not just development. We should emphasize data needs and data owners (templates, tooling, support, incentives) over purely technical milestones.