This chapter includes short descriptions of the RI portfolio management in the Nordic countries. Links are provided to more extensive information from the respective countries. The national RIs are listed for each of the Nordic countries and the Faroe Islands in Appendix 1-6. Section 3.6 contains a short description of the memberships in international RIs from the Nordic countries. These RIs and the membership countries are listed in Appendix 7. A brief analysis of the available RIs in the Nordic countries is presented in section 3.7.
3.1 Denmark
Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation appointed a permanent National Committee for Research Infrastructure in 2013. The Committee is mandated to act as a forum for preparing decision support documents and agreements on prioritisation, establishment, continuation, and financing of national and international RIs, as well as research support activities to facilitate optimal national utilisation of the RIs. The Committee is composed of representatives from the Danish universities and the Danish Council for Independent Research, with the Danish National Research Foundation as an observer.
Danish Roadmap for Research Infrastructures 2020 was published by the Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science early 2021. The roadmap consists of two key components: the strategic objectives for the RI policy area over the coming years and a catalogue of 16 specific proposals for national infrastructures, which in the short term are recommended as investment prospects. Appendix 1 includes a list of Danish national RIs.
3.2 Finland
The Research Council of Finland is responsible for funding of national and international RIs in Finland. A Finnish Research Infrastructure Committee (FIRI Committee) was established in 2012 as a part of the Research Council of Finland. The FIRI Committee monitors and develops Finnish and international RI activities, provides funding to infrastructure projects, and monitors funded projects. The FIRI Committee comprises a broad range of representatives of Finland’s public research and innovation system, universities, polytechnics, state research institutes and ministries.
The Research Council of Finland has a Strategy for National Research Infrastructures in Finland 2020–2030. Based on the strategy, the FIRI Committee, together with other actors, develop a roadmap for national and international RI activities. The present is the Roadmap for Finnish Research Infrastructures 2021–2024. Appendix 2 includes a list of Finish national RIs.
3.3 Iceland
The main public competitive fund for RIs in the fields of research and innovation is the Infrastructure Fund. The fund has since 2019 its own board and is independent from the Research Fund. It finances updates of existing infrastructures and access to domestic or foreign infrastructures as well as co-financing purchase of equipment, databases, software, and any other RI that is important for scientific progress.
The Science and Technology Policy Council commissioned the infrastructure fund to develop a research infrastructure roadmap for Iceland. The first such roadmap The Icelandic Roadmap for Research Infrastructures 2021 was published in June 2021. Appendix 3 includes a list of Icelandic national RIs.
3.4 Norway
The Research Council of Norway is responsible for the national RI funding. In 2009, the Council established the National Funding Initiative for Research Infrastructures (INFRASTRUKTUR) which allocates funding to national RIs. INFRASTRUKTUR seeks to build up relevant, up-to-date infrastructure that is accessible to the Norwegian research community and trade and industry based on the strategic decisions of the Research Council.
The Ministry of Education and Research has given the Research Council of Norway responsibility for preparing a Norwegian roadmap for investments in research infrastructure. The roadmap is intended to highlight the need for both new research infrastructures and infrastructures that have received funding from the research council. The most recent Norwegian Roadmap for Research Infrastructure was published in September 2023. The research council recently opened a new call for funding of RI of national importance. Appendix 4 includes a list of Norwegian national RIs which might be subject to changes after the funding decisions following this call.
3.5 Sweden
The Swedish Research Council (SRC) established a committee for RI in 2005. In the Research and Innovation bill 2008 the government gave SRC a national responsibility for RI and the committee changed into the Council for Research Infrastructure (RFI). RFI has thirteen members with competence within RIs from several different fields. There is no representation from the universities in RFI, instead there is a reference group with representations from the larger universities which meet regularly with representatives from RFI.
The Swedish Research Council’s guide to research infrastructure 2023 (so far only available in Swedish) is a plan to Sweden’s long-term need for national and international RI. It provides documentation for discussions about funding future infrastructures within the Swedish Research Council, but also in consultation with other research funding bodies nationally and internationally. An inventory and prioritisation of the needs is performed every second year. The needs inventory lists RIs that are eligible for submitting proposals to RFI. The latest version of this inventory is the Needs inventory of research infrastructure of national interest 2021/2022. Appendix 5 includes a list of Swedish national RIs.
3.6 Nordic contributions to international research infrastructures
Appendix 7 shows the partnerships from Nordic countries in international RIs. The Nordic countries are very well represented in the European RI landscape, both by their respective national node contributions to distributed RIs and as of members in single sited RIs. It should also be noted that the distributed RIs completely dominate the ESFRI Roadmap except for physics where many scientific questions require extremely advanced, and expensive, tools to preform state of the art investigations. The costs for distributed RIs are in most cases dominated by in kind contributions, i.e., national nodes in a distributed RI cover their own costs. In contrast, single sited infrastructures require large cash contributions from the members, which means that decision-making assemblies for these infrastructures must agree on budgets and plans for how the infrastructure should be developed. Such research infrastructures are long-term, which means that the costs extend over several decades and are also subject to decisions th
at are difficult for an individual country to control. Nordic co-operation can play an important role for both distributed and individual RIs, as will be elaborated in more detail below.
3.7 Analysis
The Nordic countries have large similarities in their respective RI portfolios, but also some evident differences (see Appendix 1-5). Since the lists are limited to national funding, some of the differences can be attributed to the fact the funding is handled in different ways in the different countries. The Danish list is shorter than the lists from countries of comparable size (Norway and Finland), which reflects the fact that in the Danish system, the universities have a larger responsibility for national RIs. For example, the Danish e-infrastructure Consortium (DeiC) is funded and co-owned by the Danish universities and the Ministry of Higher Education and Science and is not subject to competitive national funding. The Norwegian RI Roadmap has a greater industrial focus compared to the other Nordic countries which explains the comparatively extensive Norwegian RI list. This is a consequence of the broader role of the Research Council of Norway compared to the research funding agencies in the other Nordic countries.
The distribution of RIs between the five research categories (e-Infrastructure; Energy, Climate and Environment; Life Science, Biotech and Health; Physical Sciences and Engineering; Social Sciences and Humanities) also reflects the research profiles of the countries. It is interesting to note, in particular from the list showing memberships in international RIs, that the Nordic countries have a lot in common in that respect. This has led to extensive collaboration both at council level and between researchers, but there are definitely opportunities for further both deepened and broadened collaborations in several areas.
Some interesting differences in the RI profiles can also be noted. Norway has a stronger emphasis on energy than the other Nordic countries even though some of the RIs that are listed in the category “energy, climate, and environment also belong to the “engineering” category. Finland has a strong focus on e-infrastructure and climate and environment in their RI portfolio and is also very active as host for European infrastructure consortia. Sweden’s portfolio is broad which is expected from a, in a Nordic context, large country. Physical sciences have a particularly strong presence in their RI profile, with ESS and Max IV as examples of big investments in single sited RIs.
The observed differences could be a motivation for Nordic collaboration. For instance, small research communities in one Nordic country, which cannot motivate investment in a national RI, could instead approach anther Nordic country which has made such investments. Also, the Norwegian example of a larger industrial involvement in RIs could be of interest also for other Nordic countries.