Cross-Infrastructure Governance

Strategic Rationale and Evidence Base

Strategic Importance

The compute and data continuum vision requires research workflows to span resources governed by different entities: thematic research digital infrastructures (e.g. WLCG for HL-LHC, SRCNet for SKAO), pan-European multi-disciplinary digital infrastructures (e.g. EuroHPC, EOSC, EGI), nationally funded facilities, and community-governed federations. Each governance model reflects legitimate objectives. Without coordination mechanisms bridging these structures, researchers experience governance boundaries as friction that limits infrastructure utility.

Governance coordination underpins both interoperability and efficient resource use. Following the European Interoperability Framework, interoperability operates at four layers: legal (compatible access policies and liability), organisational (aligned governance processes and roles), semantic (shared accounting metrics and vocabularies), and technical (standardised interfaces and protocols). Beyond interoperability, governance coordination enables complementary investment across national and European programmes, planning certainty for multi-decade scientific programmes, and alignment of infrastructure evolution with scientific requirements.

Current State

European compute and data infrastructure operates through multiple governance structures:

• Thematic digital infrastructures serve specific communities through community-driven governance. WLCG has sustained federated operations for over twenty years across 160 sites in more than forty countries, coordinated through 65 Memoranda of Understanding with national funding agencies. SKA Observatory is building comparable governance through SRCNet. LOFAR ERIC, established in 2024, is building its computing governance model as LOFAR 2.0 operations approach, with growing data volumes that will require coordinated multi-year commitments from member states.
• Pan-European digital infrastructures provide cross-domain services through different models: EuroHPC coordinates thirty-five states through direct co-funded infrastructure investment, with governance oriented toward industrial competitiveness and technological sovereignty alongside research; EOSC federates existing infrastructure under common FAIR principles; EGI Federation provides federated HTC and cloud services governed by its member institutions; and the eInfrastructure Assembly coordinates horizontal initiatives including EUDAT, OpenAIRE, PRACE and GÉANT.

National programmes provide the majority of HTC and cloud capacity, whilst the EC contributes to HPC via EuroHPC and supports transnational and virtual access to research infrastructure services through Horizon Europe INFRA-SERV calls. Alignment across these funding streams is necessary for a coherent compute continuum.

The WLCG-EGI cooperation demonstrates that coordination across governance models is achievable when mechanisms exist. Structured engagement between data-intensive science communities and EuroHPC, however, remains underdeveloped. National and European funding routes serve different purposes: national programmes provide persistent operational capacity, whilst European programmes support coordination, innovation, and cross-border access. Bridging these complementary roles, rather than treating them as competing alternatives, is a governance challenge this priority addresses.

Community Evidence

D5.2 identifies Gap #2 (lack of coordinated governance frameworks) and Gap #16 (sustainability models not aligned across infrastructures). The JENA Computing White Paper recommends that "requirements of communities must be considered in design and procurement of future HPC systems." The WLCG Strategy notes "there is no WLCG common funding" for federating services, demonstrating that federated governance requires explicit coordination investment.

Community consultation on this priority confirmed that governance scope should focus on alignment and co-design rather than centralised control. Participants identified three topics requiring coordination beyond existing mechanisms: aligning procurement with data-intensive science requirements; coordinating innovation for full-chain workflow optimisation (as distinct from classical HPC algorithmic optimisation); and bridging the structural mismatch between operational computing needs and project-based funding.

Technical Foundation

D6.1 Section 5.2 (Co-Design of Computing, Data, and Networking Infrastructure) provides the rationale: "HEP and RA must engage with funding agencies during the design and procurement phases of HPC systems... The most effective way to be part of the co-design process in Europe would be to obtain a recognized status within EuroHPC." D6.1 Section 5.8 and Section 4.6 describe interoperable standards and transparent accounting across federated resources.

European Alignment

Cross-infrastructure governance connects directly to four European strategies:

• EuroHPC: governance coordination provides the mechanism for data-intensive science communities to engage with EuroHPC procurement and access processes, ensuring exascale investments serve scientific as well as industrial objectives.
• EOSC: the coordination forum aligns thematic RI data governance with EOSC's federated data infrastructure and FAIR principles, bridging domain-specific practices with the EOSC Web of FAIR Data and Services.
• ESFRI: research infrastructures on the ESFRI Roadmap operate on 20 to 30 year timelines; governance coordination provides the stability these multi-generational programmes require and aligns with ESFRI's 2025 recommendations on long-term engagement, funding synergies, and community development. The ESFRI thematic clusters (including ESCAPE for astronomy and particle physics) provide a coordination model that this priority extends, particularly as the Horizon Europe 2026-2027 Work Programme introduces "Data, Computing and Digital Research Infrastructures" as a sixth ESFRI domain with its own cluster. ESFRI is also positioning for a more proactive coordination role across the research and technology infrastructure landscape, advocating for consolidation through clustering and a light overarching governance model.
• ERA: the forthcoming European Research Area Act will establish a binding regulatory framework for cross-border research cooperation, realising the "fifth freedom" of free movement of researchers, knowledge, and technology. The European Parliament resolution of March 2026 calls for strengthened ERA governance, enhanced coordination between national and EU R&I initiatives, and improved accessibility of research infrastructure. The ERA Policy Agenda 2025-2027 includes active actions on research infrastructures (25 Member States participating), research careers, and enabling open science. Governance coordination for the compute and data continuum directly supports these objectives by providing an institutional model for cross-border resource sharing, joint planning, and coordinated investment.

Target Outcomes and Impact Assessment

Strategic Outcomes

This priority delivers governance coordination enabling effective use of European compute and data infrastructure, benefiting thematic research communities, pan-European infrastructure providers, and funding agencies.

Outcome 1: Coordination Forum with Substantive Agenda

A coordination forum brings together thematic research digital infrastructures (WLCG, SRCNet, LOFAR ERIC, and others), multidisciplinary digital infrastructures (EuroHPC, EOSC, EGI), and policy maker representatives from national funding agencies and relevant EC units. The forum addresses interoperability across four layers (legal, organisational, semantic, and technical), coordinates the innovation agenda for data-intensive science (full-chain workflow optimisation, real-time processing), and develops policy recommendations bridging national and European funding models. Formal representation replaces ad hoc engagement dependent on personal relationships.

Outcome 2: Coherent European Infrastructure Investment

Governance coordination aligns infrastructure development with scientific requirements across all participants. Thematic research infrastructures gain influence over procurement and architecture decisions affecting multi-decade programmes. Pan-European infrastructures gain structured feedback from demanding users, enabling capability development that serves documented scientific needs. Funding agencies gain a coordinated evidence base for investment decisions, reducing duplication and enabling complementary use of national and European funding streams.

Success Indicators

• Coordination forum operational with participation from thematic RI leadership, pan-European infrastructure representatives, and policy maker observers
• Active involvement of scientific communities through topical networks
• Formal engagement channels established with EuroHPC, EOSC, and EGI governance structures
• Joint working groups addressing cross-cutting technical challenges (federated identity, computing interfaces, data management standards, accounting interoperability)
• Coordinated innovation agenda published, distinguishing data-intensive science requirements from classical HPC optimisation
• Policy recommendations on the operational-versus-project funding mismatch delivered to national and European stakeholders
• Documented evidence of coordination influencing infrastructure procurement or access decisions

European Impact

Governance coordination enables Europe to realise scientific return on distributed infrastructure investments and strengthens European digital sovereignty by making European infrastructure more accessible than commercial alternatives. As the ERA Act establishes a binding framework for cross-border research cooperation, governance coordination for the compute and data continuum provides a concrete implementation model for research infrastructure interoperability and coordinated investment.

Implementation Pathway and Stakeholder Coordination

Implementation Phases

Short term (1-3 years):

• Establish a coordination forum bringing together thematic and multidisciplinary digital infrastructures with policy maker representation
• Define the forum's substantive agenda: procurement alignment, innovation coordination, and bridging the operational-versus-project funding mismatch
• Map existing coordination mechanisms and identify gaps the forum addresses
• Develop shared metrics for infrastructure utilisation and cross-infrastructure workflow performance

Mid term (3-5 years):

• Consolidate coordination to deliver cross-border access to data and compute services, piloting integrated access across thematic and digital infrastructure clusters
• Develop policy recommendations on the operational-versus-project funding mismatch, aligned with the ERA Act framework
• Assess options for institutional evolution, including formal RI representation within EuroHPC and EOSC governance and coordination through the emerging ESFRI digital cluster
• Establish joint working groups on cross-cutting technical challenges connecting the forum to Pillar 2 implementation

Long term (5+ years):

• Assess impact of governance coordination and determine whether a formalised institutional structure is warranted for multi-decade infrastructure planning
• Align governance arrangements with the multi-decade timescales of the scientific programmes they serve
• Coordinate European positions in international collaborations spanning multiple continents

Stakeholder Roles

• Scientific Communities and Research Infrastructures
• Responsibilities: Publish multi-year resource plans (5+ year horizons). Designate representatives for the coordination forum. Participate in co-design with e-Infrastructure providers, bringing innovation requirements (e.g. full-chain optimisation, real-time processing) alongside capacity needs. Coordinate positions across thematic infrastructures.
• Benefits: Voice in decisions affecting multi-decade programmes; access to diverse resources through coordinated allocation; reduced cross-provider friction.
• Computing and Data Service Providers / e-Infrastructures
• Responsibilities: Establish liaison mechanisms with thematic RIs including named contacts and periodic reviews. Participate in the coordination forum and working groups. Accommodate operational access models alongside project-based allocations. Provide technical coordination on interface standardisation, identity, and accounting.
• Benefits: Demanding users driving capability development; demonstrated scientific impact justifying investment; validated federation models.
• Policy Makers and Funding Bodies
• Responsibilities: Ensure data-intensive science requirements inform EuroHPC and EOSC procurement. Address the operational-versus-project funding mismatch through multi-year allocation mechanisms (P02), strategic access designations, and operational funding streams. Align national and European RI investments, consistent with the ERA Act framework. Participate in the coordination forum.
• Benefits: Coherent European investments; reduced duplication; clearer accountability for scientific outcomes.

Resource Needs

• Coordination capacity: liaison effort (estimated 2-3 Full-Time-Equivalent -FTE) contributed in-kind by participating organisations or through existing institutional frameworks, rather than requiring a new coordination body
• Policy analysis capacity: expertise on the operational-versus-project funding gap and EC engagement
• Pilot activities: short-term project funding (e.g. Horizon Europe INFRA-DEV calls) for forum establishment and integrated access pilots
• Funding timeline: Horizon Europe INFRA calls (2026-2027) for short-term; FP10 or institutional integration for medium-term; structural funding model for long-term sustainability

Critical Dependencies

Cross-priority dependencies with:

• P02 (Federated Resource Allocation): allocation mechanisms depend on governance agreements; the forum provides the institutional context for negotiation
• P03 (Federated Identity and Trust): trust framework governance depends on cross-institutional agreements the forum facilitates
• P04 (Heterogeneous Computing Integration): technical integration requires governance alignment on interfaces, policies, and access conditions
• P11 (Community Collaboration and Co-Design): the CoP feeds requirements into the coordination forum