European Partnership Help Center

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.

This question refers to the partnership’s ‘winding up’ period, i.e. the phase where partnerships do not actively launch calls anymore but are solely focused on implementing and reporting on funded projects, typically indeed a 3 year period, where the partnership should require fewer resources as compared to its ‘active’ phase. These are typically included in the Grant Agreements. Phasing out strategies are not a built-in “period” in the partnership’s life cycle. Partnerships may start preparing for transition before the end (of the funding period, or of the partnership) to maintain momentum and continuity. The focus is on the long-term continuation of core activities and networks, not on administrative timing of calls or grants.

Yes, all European Partnerships in FP10 will by definition be (partially) funded by the FP. Consequently, a scenario in which a partnership evolves into a tripartite partnership under FP10 would not constitute a scenario without FP funding.

The answer is yes. This is because such reflections form part of a broader consideration of the future and are therefore not excluded from the exercise. The phasing out strategy must, however, include at least one scenario with no FP funding. If a partnership considers it relevant to also reflect on a possible continuation as a partnership under the next FP, this is not prohibited as long as this would not represent a status quo (e.g. a co-programmed wanting to remain a co-programmed without taking into account the changes under the FP10 proposal; or the exact same scope). The guidelines allow for such flexibility. That said, it is important to distinguish this from framing the strategy as a justification for continued partnership status. The strategy should first and foremost address the no FP funding scenario. Any reflection on a potential future partnership under FP10 must be realistic and actionable, taking into account the possible absence of current partnership structures. This requires careful consideration of how such a partnership would function in practice, how eligibility and selection criteria would realistically be met including governance arrangements and potential partner composition.

Partnerships are free to include risk assessments, SWOT analyses, or other comparisons of advantages and drawbacks for each scenario, should they consider this useful. Similarly, more detailed elements, such as business plans for membership models, may be annexed if appropriate. However, this is not a requirement. As long as each scenario is credible, realistic and aligned with the guidance and checklist, further elaboration will not be insisted upon. The purpose of this exercise is not to produce highly granular documentation or detailed internal financial breakdowns, nor to “convince” the Commission. Rather, these reflections should primarily serve the partnership itself, helping it think through possible trade-offs, risks and governance implications in a structured way. The three-page limit is intended to keep the strategy strategic and focused. Supporting material may be annexed where helpful, but the core document should remain concise, forwardlooking and proportionate.

Different activities within a partnership may indeed follow different continuation paths. Some may evolve, merge with other initiatives, or be sustained through alternative funding sources, including national, regional or private funding. The key is to prioritise the partnership’s legacy: identify which core assets, networks and impacts should be safeguarded, assess the feasibility and risks of each scenario, and align ambitions with realistic funding possibilities. Clear prioritisation criteria and a transparent assessment of resource implications are important elements of this reflection. Scenarios should be discussed within the partnership’s own governance structures. They may also be shared with relevant Commission services for guidance and exchange. 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 chose 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).