European Partnership Help Center

Welcome to the ERA-LEARN Help Center for European Partnerships. Here you will find a collection of frequently asked questions and answers from our webinars and events. More questions and answers will be added over time. If you have any partnership related questions, please send them to office@era-learn.eu and we will add them to the Help Center.

We must submit the finalised strategy in March. We understand that it is a living document. However, in order to submit a “finalised” version, even if based on assumptions, we need to ask the governing board and the partners for approval before the document is delivered to the EC. How can we ensure that the process is transparent within the partnership and at the same time stick to the March deadline?

The deadline of 20 March refers to the submission of the final draft version to the Commission for compliance assessment. Formal adoption within the partnership’s governance structure may take place shortly thereafter, in line with internal procedures. The obligation to prepare a phasing-out strategy has been embedded in the legal framework from the outset, and the timeline for this exercise was communicated in advance. The March deadline is therefore intended to provide sufficient time for internal consultation while ensuring alignment across partnerships. To balance transparency and timing, partnerships are encouraged to involve their governance bodies early in the drafting process, share key assumptions clearly, and frame the document as a forward-looking and evolving reflection. As the strategy is a living document, refinements can be made after initial submission and formal adoption, provided that the core compliance requirements are met. The objective is not to rush internal deliberations, but to ensure that a structured and credible reflection is in place within the agreed timeframe.
Is formal adoption of the phasing-out strategy by the Governing Board or by the General Assembly, as this is practically very different. Involving the General assembly of the JUs in the adoption of the phasing out strategy may cause extra uncertainty and risk member loss. How much involvement is needed from Boards vs. General Assemblies?

It is for each partnership to determine, in line with its own governance arrangements, which body is most appropriate to formally validate and adopt the phasing-out strategy. The specific choice may vary depending on the structure and internal rules of the partnership. What is essential is that the strategy is formally endorsed within the governance framework and reflects the collective buy-in of the partnership and its members. The objective is to ensure ownership and shared understanding of the forward-looking reflection. The requirement to prepare a phasing-out strategy has been clear from the outset, as it is embedded in the legal base of Horizon Europe. Moreover, all partnerships have a clearly defined duration, and continuation beyond the current Framework Programme has never been guaranteed. The exercise therefore does not introduce a new element of uncertainty, but rather formalises a reflection that was foreseen from the beginning. As such, its adoption should not in itself lead to member disengagement.
Some KICs are actively involved in Horizon Europe ongoing projects (receiving considerable EC contribution and thus not fully phased out). Given the nature of the KICs and expected pathways, what do the presenters (from EITs) recommend to the Partnerships to consider in particular to the phasing out (and sustainability)?

KICs, as independent legal entities, remain eligible to apply for competitive funding under Horizon Europe, just like any other eligible entity. It is important to distinguish between such participation in competitive calls and ring-fenced funding. What is being phased out is the latter – dedicated, ring-fenced funding streams – not the possibility for KICs to compete successfully for project funding alongside other applicants. If applicable, partnerships may also propose similar models under their additional or optional scenarios to sustain certain activities in the future.
How will the European Commission use the phasing-out strategies? Will they be part of the portfolio approach for partnerships, and what is the expected timeline for their use?

This process is connected to the partnership portfolio because it supports the overall life cycle. However, it does not influence decision-making or selection. Its main purpose is to ensure compliance with legal obligations under the current Framework Programme, strengthen the resilience of each partnership, and safeguard their legacy so that the achievements built so far are preserved for the future. Developing a phasing out strategy is not about activating it or comparing partnerships. The purpose is to encourage everyone to consider possible futures and be prepared, not to evaluate or trigger the phase-out process. Creating a strong strategy does not mean it will be implemented, nor is it used for selection or assessment purposes. However, failure to comply with this legal requirement may be considered a weakness when assessing the partnership's performance and future prospects.
When is the expected start of the phasing-out scenarios? Should the scenarios start at the intended endpoint of the partnership assuming it is successful, or should they start for instance a year from now assuming a sudden interruption of FP funding?

Strategies are not timebound. The current duration of the partnership under Horizon Europe sets the earliest possible transition point. The starting point of the phasing out strategy should be considered at the latest at the end of the current Framework Programme funding (e.g. from 2028 if the funding stops at 2027). A “reasonable point in time” refers to a plausible and policy-realistic moment at which the transition could start, in the light of the current set end date of the partnership. Each partnership has a set lifetime, which will not be shortened in relation to this exercise.
Who will decide on the phasing-out scenario to be chosen? With whom will this be discussed?

The partnership itself is responsible for selecting and implementing the scenario that best fits its context, in consultation with its members and governance bodies. The Commission services may provide feedback and guidance but do not decide the chosen pathway. While the Commission does not choose the phasing out scenario, the configuration of the future partnership portfolio may influence which scenario is most relevant or ultimately implemented (e.g. mergers or integration with other initiatives).