Erasmus+ KA2 Guide: Cooperation Partnerships Explained

Erasmus+ Key Action 2 is the cooperation strand of the programme — the funding stream that supports transnational partnerships between organisations to develop innovative practices, produce transferable outputs and drive systemic change in education, training and youth work. Where KA1 sends individuals abroad to learn, KA2 brings organisations together to create something that did not exist before.

KA2 encompasses two distinct actions with very different scales, budgets and ambitions: KA210 Small-Scale Partnerships and KA220 Cooperation Partnerships. Choosing the right one is the first strategic decision any applicant must make — and it is one that many organisations get wrong, applying for KA220 when their project is better suited to KA210, or limiting their ambition to KA210 when their idea and capacity clearly justify KA220. This guide explains both actions in full, helps you decide which is right for your project, and covers what evaluators look for in each.

1. What Is Erasmus+ KA2

Key Action 2 — Cooperation Among Organisations and Institutions — funds transnational partnerships that develop innovative practices, produce open-access outputs and contribute to the modernisation of education, training and youth work systems across Europe. Unlike KA1, which funds individual learning experiences, KA2 funds collective organisational work — partnerships that produce something tangible and transferable for the wider sector.

KA2 is built around the idea that complex challenges in education, training and youth work cannot be solved by one organisation in one country. They require diverse expertise, comparative perspectives and cross-national collaboration to produce solutions that are robust, validated and applicable across different contexts. The programme funds partnerships that demonstrate this genuinely — not partnerships that exist on paper to meet eligibility requirements.

KA2 operates across five sectors — school education, vocational education and training (VET), higher education, adult education and youth — each managed by the National Agency of the coordinator’s country. Applications are submitted by sector, and each sector has its own call deadlines, priorities and budget allocation.

2. KA210 vs KA220: Full Comparison

KA210 and KA220 are both KA2 actions but operate at very different scales and with different expectations. The table below covers every major dimension of difference — read it carefully before deciding which action to apply for.

3. Eligibility Requirements

KA2 eligibility is checked before evaluation begins. Applications that fail any eligibility criterion are rejected at the admissibility stage — no evaluator sees the content. The following requirements apply across both KA210 and KA220, with differences noted where they exist.

Organisation eligibility. All partner organisations must be legally constituted public or private organisations active in education, training or youth work. Informal groups of young people are not eligible to participate in Partnerships for Cooperation — neither as applicants nor as partners, in either KA210 or KA220. (Informal youth groups can apply for other actions, like Youth Exchanges, just not this one.) Every organisation must register and obtain a valid OID through the Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps Organisation Registration System before the application is submitted.

Country requirements. All partners must be based in Erasmus+ programme countries — the 27 EU Member States plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, North Macedonia, Serbia and Türkiye. KA210 requires at least 2 partners from 2 different programme countries; KA220 requires at least 3 from 3 different countries. Partner country organisations (Western Balkans, Eastern Partnership, South Mediterranean) may participate in some KA220 sectors under specific conditions — verify against the current Programme Guide for your sector.

Sector alignment. Each application is submitted under a specific sector — school education, VET, higher education, adult education or youth — and must be submitted to the National Agency of the coordinator’s country for that sector. The sector must match the primary mission of the coordinator and, to a significant degree, the other partners. A consortium of youth organisations applying under adult education without clear justification will be questioned at eligibility.

Partner mandates (KA220). All partner organisations must formally authorise the coordinator to submit the application on their behalf, as part of the standard accession process for multi-beneficiary grants. Confirm the current mechanism and submission timing against the live application form and call documentation, since digital processes are updated periodically. Missing this step makes the application inadmissible.

4. How KA2 Applications Are Evaluated

KA2 applications are assessed by independent evaluators against four criteria — but the weighting differs between KA210 and KA220. Understanding what each criterion assesses — and what evaluators look for under each one — is essential for writing an application that scores above the funding threshold.

5. Budget Models: KA210 and KA220

Both KA2 actions are lump sum grants — you receive a fixed amount regardless of actual itemized spending. The real difference is in how many tiers exist and how much justification detail is required.

KA210. You choose between exactly two amounts — €30,000 or €60,000 — and the full amount is paid upon successful project completion. There are no receipts, no financial audit and no cost categories to track. Instead, evaluators assess whether the scope and ambition of your activities are proportionate to the amount requested. A €60,000 project with two partners, four activities and one modest output will raise value-for-money questions. A €30,000 project with two partners, six well-described activities and a validated bilingual toolkit is credible and proportionate.

KA220. You choose between exactly three amounts — €120,000, €250,000 or €400,000. To decide (and justify) which one, you build a detailed cost estimate: staff costs using daily rates by role and country, travel and accommodation using unit cost rates by distance band and destination, subcontracting and equipment as itemized costs requiring justification. This detailed budget is built line by line in the application’s budget tool and distributed across work packages, with the project management work package capped at 20% of the total. But the amount actually awarded is still one of the three fixed tiers — not a reimbursement of your itemized total.

The key difference in planning logic. For KA210, you design the activities and then select the amount that is proportionate to what you have described — no detailed breakdown needed. For KA220, you design the activities, estimate staff days and costs for each one, total it up, and pick the closest of the three tiers. Both require consistency between the narrative and the financial section — but the level of detail required to get there is entirely different.

6. How to Choose Between KA210 and KA220

The most important factor in choosing between KA210 and KA220 is honest assessment of your project’s scope and your consortium’s capacity. Answer the following questions — the pattern of your answers will point clearly to the right action.

How many substantial outputs does your project produce? If the answer is one focused output — a toolkit, a guide, a small curriculum — KA210 is the right fit. If the answer is two or more substantial outputs that each require dedicated development work, partner collaboration and validation, KA220 is more appropriate.

How many partners does the project genuinely need? If two partners can credibly deliver everything the project requires, KA210 is right. If the project genuinely requires three or more partners with distinct and complementary roles — because the problem exists across multiple national contexts or because the methodology requires diverse expertise — KA220 is right.

Does your coordinator have previous Erasmus+ project management experience? KA220 requires the coordinator to manage a complex, multi-year grant with detailed financial reporting, partner coordination and interim reporting obligations. If your organisation is applying for the first time or has only KA210 experience, coordinating a KA220 project is a significant step up in administrative complexity. Start with KA210 to build your track record.

How much funding does the project realistically require? If your activities, partner roles and outputs can be credibly delivered within €60,000, KA210 is proportionate. If honest budgeting — accounting for staff days, travel, translations and validation activities — produces a figure well above €60,000, KA220 is the appropriate vehicle. Do not stretch a KA210-scale idea to fill a KA220 tier, and do not compress a KA220-scale project into a KA210 lump sum.

7. Most Common KA2 Mistakes

Applying for KA220 when the project is KA210 scale. A two-partner, 18-month project producing one training guide and applying for the €400,000 KA220 tier will score poorly on relevance and project design — the ambition does not match the action. Evaluators assess proportionality between the grant amount, the partnership size and the deliverables. Mismatched scale is one of the clearest signals of weak project development.

Generic partner justifications. Describing partners as “experienced organisations in the field of education with relevant expertise” tells evaluators nothing. Every partner must be justified specifically — their precise expertise, their role in this project, and why they are the best-placed organisation for that role. Generic justifications suggest the partnership was assembled for eligibility rather than for delivery.

Inconsistency between the narrative and the budget. Activities described in the work plan that have no corresponding budget line — or budget lines with no corresponding activity — are the most reliable indicator of a proposal that was written in sections without being reviewed as a whole. Run the consistency check before submission: every activity that costs money must appear in the budget, and every budget line must link to a specific activity.

Weak or vague impact section. Impact carries real weight in both actions — 20 points for KA210, 25 for KA220 — enough to determine whether a borderline application crosses the funding threshold. Applications that describe impact in vague terms (“the project will contribute to improving education quality”) without specific reach estimates, named dissemination channels or a credible sustainability plan consistently underperform on this criterion.

Missing partner mandates for KA220. This is an admissibility issue — not an evaluation weakness. A KA220 application submitted without the required partner authorisations is rejected before any evaluator reads it. Set an internal deadline for this well ahead of the submission deadline and do not submit until everything is confirmed.

No connection to EU priorities. The Relevance criterion explicitly assesses how well the project connects to Erasmus+ horizontal priorities and sector-specific priorities. Applications that do not reference these priorities — or reference them generically without demonstrating a specific connection — score below their potential on one of the highest-weighted criteria. Read the Programme Guide priorities section before writing the relevance section of the application.

8. KA2 Application Checklist

• ✅ Correct KA2 action selected — KA210 for focused small-scale, KA220 for systemic higher-impact
• ✅ Minimum partner requirements confirmed — 2 countries for KA210, 3 for KA220
• ✅ All organisations registered with a valid OID via the Erasmus+ and ESC Organisation Registration System
• ✅ Sector confirmed and application submitted to correct National Agency
• ✅ Partner mandates/authorisations collected from all partners (KA220) before submission deadline
• ✅ Needs analysis backed by at least 2 external sources — data, research or policy documents
• ✅ Target group defined precisely — not broadly
• ✅ Project connects to at least one named Erasmus+ priority — specifically, not generically
• ✅ SMART objectives written — specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound
• ✅ Work plan consistent with budget — every activity with a cost has a budget line
• ✅ Each partner justified specifically — expertise, role and added value stated
• ✅ Consortium includes at least one newcomer or less experienced organisation, not only established names
• ✅ Project management work package does not exceed 20% of total grant (KA220)
• ✅ Impact section includes specific reach estimates and named dissemination channels
• ✅ Sustainability plan addresses what happens to outputs and results after the grant ends
• ✅ All outputs (KA220) planned for open-access publication on the Erasmus+ Results Platform