European Partnership Help Center

There is not necessarily a contradiction between the requirement for European Partnerships to develop a phasing-out strategy, potentially including measures for financial sustainability, and the grant-based nature of co-funded partnerships under Horizon Europe. The latter are bound by the Financial Regulation and the no-profit rule, which prevents the generation or retention of profit during the lifetime of the grant. The key distinction lies between activities implemented under the grant (which must remain non-profit and for which Horizon Europe 2021-2027 funding is not questioned) and those prepared within the grant but taking effect after its closure, which may legitimately aim to secure future financial autonomy. Possible approaches could include: developing business or sustainability plans during the grant; preparing the establishment of a legal entity for post-grant activities; identifying complementary funding sources; and designing contribution or service models to be activated only after the grant ends. How exactly to manage potential new commitments or cash flows during the grant period, in line with grant obligations, can only be determined based on concrete proposals or situations. The feedback round on the phasing-out strategies could offer a first opportunity to do so. For specific cases that may arise later on, co-funded partnerships are encouraged to raise these with their project officers or the relevant Commission policy services in a timely manner to ensure targeted support.

Starting the transition before the end of the partnership is recommended to ensure continuity. Monitoring such preparatory steps towards transitioning during the project’s lifetime is part of good management. Any additional funding leveraged should be reported transparently and treated according to grant rules, but the focus of the phasing-out monitoring is strategic continuity, not financial reporting.

We have already started considering phasing out strategies. We are reviewing the different activities coordinated at the partnership level, as each activity we want to continue and the linkages we want to maintain may require different phasing out or continuation options. These options might need to be anchored at various levels within the European framework, so we will need to develop several scenarios for each activity. In some cases, especially on the research side, certain activities may not be able to continue without additional funding, resulting in potential gaps that would require seeking EC funding. Who should we discuss these activities and scenarios with? Should these discussions happen only within the partnership, or also at the European level? And who ultimately decides how we proceed? Absolutely, it’s possible for different activities within your partnership to follow different continuation paths. Some may evolve or merge with other initiatives. On the research side, even if framework program funding ends, you may still be able to secure national or private funding for certain activities. As for decision-making, you are encouraged to discuss these scenarios within your partnership and during the feedback round with relevant services. Ultimately, the partnership itself decides which scenario to pursue for its future.

The timeline for phasing out is far in the future, which makes it difficult to predict how partnerships will evolve. Exactly because of this uncertainty, we cannot assume the partnership will remain the same or change in a specific way. That’s why it’s important to consider different future scenarios. For the level of detail, the three-page limit is intended to help you address the required checklist items without being overly detailed. We expect a realistic level of detail that fits within these pages, understanding that more detail now may require more updates later. This requirement is not new; it was originally meant to be addressed even before the partnership launched. We recognize the need for flexibility and encourage a sensible approach to the level of detail provided.

The Commission is fully aware of the different implementations’ modes and levels of maturity across partnerships. This is why a checklist was provided rather than a prescriptive template, to allow for flexibility. The development of the phasing-out strategies is not an evaluation exercise, and the strategies will not be compared against each other. The purpose is simply to ensure that reflection on the partnership’s possible future is taking place and that the legal requirements are fulfilled.

As Moonshots feature in the proposal for the next Framework Programme, transitioning into one could constitute a potential scenario, though it would not qualify as a “scenario without FP funding.” Negotiations on the next MFF are ongoing, so the detailed selection and implementation modalities of moonshots will evolve. Strategies should be treated as living documents and may be updated as new opportunities, including Moonshots, become clearer.