With the increase in the number of ERICs, RIs in the ESFRI Roadmap, and the surge of other types of Infrastructures such as EDICs and TIs, the landscape is becoming increasingly fragmented, resulting in a multiplication of efforts and a lack of synergies. To avoid this, new communities, RI projects and RIs are invited to integrate in existing ERICs, and mergers of ERICs have been proposed. ERICs met to share their experiences and reflect on how the current policy developments may affect each of them. They focused on the rationale for consolidation, advantages and disadvantages, requirements and procedures, as shared by those ERICs that have considered this aspect from the ERIC’s conception.
This April, Work Package 12 of the ERIC Forum 2 project held a dedicated meeting on this topic, where participants heard from emblematic case studies and shared their own experiences. In this interview, Ornela De Giacomo (CERIC-ERIC), Luc van Dyck (Euro-Argo ERIC) and Vanja Komljenovic (CESSDA) answer a few questions on how the discussion developed and what its main takeaways were.
What were the main examples of integration discussed?
We had four examples:
- (lack of) integration of a community in an ERIC, suggested by ESFRI. The ERIC was open for the integration, but the community was generously funded, to proceed on their own, with little added value with respect to the existing ERIC.
- Joint operation of national nodes of ERICs. The Social sciences and Humanities cluster showcased their collaboration at the level of the cluster, that resulted in some national nodes providing joint services to more than one ERIC, and achieving a critical mass for acquiring external funding.
- Shared services between ERICs with a common statutory seat. Some ERICs, hosted by the same country, are exploring and developing synergies towards the implementation of shared services, for a more efficient use of resources.
- ERIC designed to incorporate new communities. One ERIC showcased their unique approach to the integration of new communities, a practice they have adopted from their constitution. This approach may serve as inspiration for other ERICs
Who is promoting the integration?
There are examples in this sense, both top-down and bottom-up. Already in 2022, the Competitiveness Council conclusions (15429/22) called for the ESFRI Landscape Analysis 2024 to
“propose […] associating and even merging of European, national and regional RIs, and their deeper integration in a fully functional and interoperable European RI ecosystem”.
The ESFRI Roadmap 2026 Public Guide now welcomes and encourages the “merging of RI projects with existing RIs whenever possible”. In its 2024 position paper on the upcoming Framework Programme 10, the ERIC Forum urged
“to consolidate the current RI arena and focus in the next phase in terms of support and financial program […] on the exploitation of existing ERICs as strategic assets rather than funding more efforts towards projects in preparation for future ERICs. New initiatives can build instead on existing infrastructure whenever possible and consider how their needs can be addressed by working jointly with the ERICs already being in place.”
And, indeed, some INFRADEV calls of the Horizon Europe 2026-2027 Work Programme make it mandatory for applicants aiming to develop new RI concepts to “assess as a first option extending the scope of already existing infrastructures and/or sustainably integrating existing pan-European and national capacities”.
We have seen also bottom-up examples in ERICs, where some of them have developed procedures to incorporate new communities, created synergies with national nodes or agreed on shared services.
What are the expected positive aspects of integration?
The main positive outcome is a more cohesive landscape of RIs, more integrated services and a better use of resources, impacting the research and innovation communities. For some RIs, the possibility to integrate new communities has enabled new fields of science.
There is the expectation by funders, that mergers and integration would result in a significant reduction of their commitments. While we would expect that an integration in a mature, well managed and sustainable RI would effectively reduce investments related to the development of the RI and its consolidation, and to some extent, the relative costs of some shared services that can be used by a larger community, there is a change in scale due to an increased complexity and number of transactions that will require immediate resources in the phase of integration, and sustained resources for an increase in the cost of operations. The aspect of funding for the initial integration but also for the long-term operation must be properly addressed by the ERIC involving its members.
This seems to suggest there are hurdles for these integrations, which are the main ones affecting ERICs?
Beyond the financial aspects mentioned above, major challenges include:
- Complexity of governance
- Asymmetry in the members’ states representation
- Blending different identity and cultures resulting from separate histories and evolutions
- Continuum of services
- Coherence of the data systems and requirements
What comes next?
A dialogue between different stakeholders is necessary, to approach this topic in a constructive way, overcoming obstacles and achieving the expected benefits. Continuous dialogue and common efforts are necessary to converge on realistic expectations. On one hand, ERICs can contribute with the analysis of the existing cases of integration, attempts for mergers and shared services, as well as with an overview of benefits and drawbacks, and suggest a methodological pathway to approach these topics. The report of WP12 will be an initial step in this direction. On the other hand, stakeholders should make clear what they pursue with the mergers or integrations, and be open to adjust their expectations based on the experience. The funders of RIs, and in particular for ERICs, the members states represented in the General Assemblies, are expected to evaluate the evidence and take a position with regards to the ERICs they participate in, including mechanisms to make any adjustment required, for example, increasing the membership fees or in-kind contributions resulting from these processes.
Finally, the EC should consider that integration of new communities or mergers may require modifying core elements of ERICs, including the name, mission, etc., and defining principles and procedures when the merger of two infrastructures, where at least one is an ERIC, may result in a different entity. The current guidelines do not foresee this case.