Dear Antje & Eija, Thank you for sharing the draft white paper and for offering the opportunity to provide input. At this stage, it would be very helpful to understand better what the objective and the targets of the paper are and, most importantly, who will be the signatories. Should it be the ENVRI Board (or, for that matter, the ENVRI and LS clusters or the ERIC Forum), what will be the endorsement process? Some information about the timeline would also be extremely useful. Should it not be an ENVRI Board paper, it would be important to explain how the European and the ENVRI Board perspectives will be taken into account. Here are some preliminary comments from Euro-Argo: 1. The draft paper is very much in line with the discourse of the Commission, probably too much. It would certainly deserve to be slightly more critical. 2. The scope of the introduction is very broad, the “indictment” of the US very strong and probably too direct, but the call for action is very narrow and falls short of what an assembly of research infrastructures should say. For instance, funding cuts in the US do not affect only data preservation and access but also, and probably even more worrying, a whole range of research areas where data won’t be produced anymore, among which continuous observation. The interdependency you refer to in the text has actually always been, in some areas (especially medical and environmental), more of a dependency in terms of leadership and investments. This is a wake-up call: Europe – and the Commission! – should stop being complacent, and that not only for the preservation of historical data but also to invest in research areas where Europe was and still is hyper dependent. That should be in a paper signed by the ENVRI Board or the ERIC Forum. 3. If the paper should only be 2-3 pages, then the introduction could be much shorter and only hint at the policy changes in the US in a general manner – everybody will know what we are talking about. 4. Regarding the call for action, the recommendations are relatively vague. We would also advise to clearly distinguish between the actions needed for data rescue and those to build up a robust, worldwide observation data system. 5. For data rescue, what is needed beyond the involvement of scientific communities is first and foremost political leadership and money. For instance, in the marine subdomain, DG MARE and DG RTD, with the assistance of people from the marine data network EMODNet and the European Digital Twin of the Ocean (which are both “controlled” by DG MARE) and the input of some scientific communities (including Euro-Argo), launched an initiative to rescue historical marine data. To the point that the Commission, in its EU Ocean Pact communication dated 5 June 2025, could announce that its EU Ocean Observation Initiative had succeeded in “securing historical data from ocean observation that are currently at risk in EU-based databases, through a Horizon Europe action (funding) in 2025.” This is a clear example of best practice that should be mentioned in the white paper and remind the Commission of its own responsibilities, political and financial. As you suggest, this could be complemented with other examples (in other fields; in Europe, outside Europe or as a joint international undertaking) as well as a list of actions still to be taken. 6. Regarding the building up of a robust, worldwide data system: the concept of prioritization of datasets may sound weird from the part of ERIC Forum, and some keywords like science diplomacy to assemble like-minded countries/geographic zones are missing. But what should really be emphasized is the need for international political leadership or even some sort of governance. Here again, the Commission should be encouraged to continue and even amplify its activities in the field - at the level of the Copernicus services, for instance, much is made to gain access to data from third parties and advocate for FAIR data and open access but a focus on global governance is missing. That is indeed the role and responsibility of the Commission. 7. As a positive example of robust data infrastructure, Argo could be mentioned. Two Global Data Assembly Centres (GDAC), one in the US and one in France, are mirror sites synchronised every day. Last April at the Argo Steering Team meeting (the global governance body), there was even a call for more redundancy by establishing a 3rd GDAC on another continent. This situation may not always be replicable in each data field – the specificity of Argo is that it is a global programme – but that is maybe what a global governance should aim to establish to make the system immune to political interference and sudden policy changes. 8. Finally, a minor point: the paper mentions that open data and open access “empowers not only the academic sector but also policymakers, public administrations, and industry to develop evidence-based solutions to societal challenges”. The list is a bit limitative. It should include operational services (Copernicus services, meteorological services, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), etc.) as well as international organisations such as the WHO or the WMO. Hope this helps. Kind regards, Yann-Hervé De Roeck & Luc van Dyck On 28/07/2025 17:38, Eija Juurola via envri_board wrote:
Dear ENVRI Board,
During the summer, European Commission hasbeen in contact with US philanthropists and private funders interested in supporting efforts to safeguard datasets critical for research and facilitate the continuous operation of critical services, mainly in the areas of climate, environment and health research, and organised a first meeting with them and European Research Infrastructures from the health and environmental domain. Me, Tuukka Petäjä from ACTRIS, and Werner participated in the meeting from ENVRI side. In the attachment you find a short recap from the meeting (cooperation on data and….docx).
One of the key outcomes from the meeting was to draft a white paper, which should highlight the societal relevance of research data and data infrastructures, with key sections on Urgency, What is at Stake, Global Challenge, and Call to Action. The document should be concise and globally framed with 2-3 pages maximum. The activity is led by Antje Keppler from ERIC Forum/Eurobioimaging.
Due to the urgency of the situation, the timeline for the first full draft is very tight, it should be developed by 7^th August, knowing that it is difficult due the vacation period in Europe.
Hence, I ask for your quick contributions to the first very preliminary draft of the White Paper and to a pooled list of repositories affected by the current situation.
Please find below links to the documents, I attach them also in this mail, if you cannot access these:
docx icon Draft White Paper - Version 270725.docx <https://actris1-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/g/personal/eija_juurola_actris_eu/EbDkEjDH6AVGomc6ngfQGzkBS6Tn6pYlrdAeIfF5nKbXaA?e=R7wk0y>
xlsx icon ListAffectedRepositories.xlsx <https://actris1-my.sharepoint.com/:x:/g/personal/eija_juurola_actris_eu/ERvwzUn51nRKs57YYxENOlAB9ivY65KC99ZCCyq3ntECag?e=PWPaUp>
I will share the contributions from ENVRI to Antje latest on 6^th August.
Thanks a lot, and best wishes
Eija
_______________________________________________ envri_board mailing list -- envri_board@maillists.icos-ri.eu To unsubscribe send an email to envri_board-leave@maillists.icos-ri.eu
