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.

Some partnerships will continue well into the 2030s, so developing detailed scenarios for events nearly a decade away is difficult. Given the uncertainty about future priorities and the MFF, what level of detail is realistically expected for such long-term scenarios?

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 recognise the need for flexibility and encourage a sensible approach to the level of detail provided.
Given that the current MFF draft may change, how should European Partnerships develop their phasing-out strategies? Should partnerships base them on current expectations or ignore the draft?

You should base your work on the current expectations for the MFF. If these expectations change in the coming months, this will not be held against you. What matters is that you acknowledge the context in which these scenarios are developed and reflect it in your strategy. Remember, this is a living document that can be updated as needed to remain relevant.
There are different conditions for each type of partnership. Could the Commission take this into consideration so that they are not evaluated or compared directly to each other?

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.
Because of the composition of some partnerships, equity, equity options and revenue-sharing are challenging; how can we compare these structures?

Each partnership should identify what financial model fits its individual structure and governance. Equity-based approaches are not suitable for all, and comparison across different partnership types is neither expected nor meaningful. What matters is internal consistency, credibility, and feasibility within each partnership’s context.
Should the phasing-out strategie be framed less around the assumption that FP10 funding will no longer be available while research objectives remain unchanged, and instead focus primarily on the partnership itself – namely the stakeholder community, networks and collective knowledge developed – and on how these assets and impacts can be sustained or transferred beyond FP funding?

Yes, that is indeed the intention. The exercise is not about managing reduced funding or assuming automatic discontinuation. It is about preparing for a scenario in which the partnership itself may not receive further FP funding. Importantly, the non-renewal of a partnership does not mean that the thematic area it addresses will no longer be supported under the Framework Programme. If the area remains strategically relevant, it may continue to be addressed through other instruments or modalities. The purpose of this exercise is therefore to encourage a forward-looking reflection that helps future-proof partnerships. It aims to ensure that the networks, knowledge, results and impacts developed over the partnership’s lifetime are safeguarded and translated into a meaningful legacy. Where possible and appropriate, partnerships may also explore how certain activities could continue through alternative funding sources, whether other EU programmes, national or regional schemes, or private funding, but the core objective is to ensure preparedness, resilience and strategic continuity rather than to presume business as usual, i.e. continuation in its current form.
Does “No FP funding” refer to no FP funding for the partnership structure, or for the thematic area?

This exercise and preparing for possible phasing out from FP funding requirement to refers to the partnership itself, not the topic or thematic area as such. For example, the end of a (fictive) partnership on sports would not mean that sports could not be addressed via regular work programme calls in the next FP, should it be a continued priority.