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.

Does the EIT have a centralised approach to common activities such as data collection?

From the EIT partnership side, there are 'Cross-KIC activities' where resources are pooled together for common challenges/projects and are funnelled through a common grant. One of them is the 'Cross KIC Shared Services' providing an Excellence Centre to share practices and, when possible, centralised work for better (and cheaper) results. This is done for audits, subgrantee onboarding and background checks. Currently it is being extended to common IT solutions and cost controls.
Can the e-grant system of the European Commission be used for partnerships to simplify the data collection and submission process?

Co-funded partnerships do not use the Commission’s corporate IT tools and are not integrated into the system. While some partnerships (e.g. Joint Undertakings) do use these systems against payment, there is no possibility for co-funded partnerships to be able to use them within Horizon Europe 2021-2034. The Commission is reflecting on the situation for the future as several co-funded partnerships have enquired about using the Commission tools including the F&T portal for proposals submission, evaluations and administration of the grants.
Why do partnerships have to report data on proposals that are not funded?

Data on proposals and their results is essential to meet the requirements of Horizon Europe's general monitoring framework, otherwise the European Commission is missing important pieces of the puzzle (success rates, impact, etc.). The EC is trying, where possible, to simplify the process and avoid double reporting, as well as adjusting and tweaking the templates as we go based on feedback from the partnerships.
As we are required to submit a draft phasing out strategy in December, which applies to all partnerships. Our current partnership in ecology runs until December 2030, but we recently submitted a proposal for a phase two extension to 2033. However, we likely won’t know the outcome of this evaluation by December, making it difficult to adapt our strategy. Should we prepare the phasing out strategy assuming the extension to 2033 will be approved, or should we base it on our current end date of 2030? This choice significantly affects our planning horizon.

The difference between a 2030 or 2033 end date represents two possible scenarios. You can begin developing both and then update your strategy once you know the outcome of your evaluation.
How can we provide thorough and meaningful responses within the three- page limit, given the complexity of the requirements?

We set a three-page limit to keep the phasing out strategies concise and avoid overburdening partnerships. You’re welcome to include extra background information as needed, but the main document should remain strategic and to the point. This approach also considers partnerships that are not yet launched, ensuring expectations and requirements are reasonable for everyone.
How is this exercise related to the phase out plans that the JUs have already prepared and decided at Board level? Do you expect input at JU level or private side members of the JUs?

For Joint Undertakings and KICs, specific processes already exist. Participation in this exercise is therefore optional but encouraged, to share knowledge, elaborate and improve their existing phasing out strategies, and benefit from mutual learning.