Results of the informal group sessions DANUBE 2014 2020 Relevant outcomes Questions To PACs: What did we learn from TAF and want to keep for DR support.
{"Image DocumentName": "DANUBE Results of the informal group sessions Questions", "Image ImageDescription": "on Seed Money. Questions. Relevant outcomes. To PACs: What did we learn from TAF and want to keep for DR support? - Both TAF-DRP and BSR Seed money models might have advantages and shall be used; (the BSR seed money is a proved framework, TAF must be assessed as well in terms of efficiency after delivering outputs); - Easy procedures should be assured (e.g. providing services, instead of grants like the TAF-DRP) - SEED money has a risk capital nature: maybe no harvest , i.e. the project will not be further financed, but this should not have any consequence. - REMINDER: This kind of support to all PAs has to be strengthened, because there is no guarantee that all PAs will be covered in the T.O.s of the programme. To NCPs: Do you need support within T.O.11b? What?? - EUSDR governance (rather than the NCPs) might need some limited support from the transnational programme (also via the technical point) seed money: preferred to be a flexible facility taking the BSR example into account while managed. DPC: Will Danube Programme run EUSDR seed money? What models to consider? - seen as an option. - objective is to support project generation for EUDRS, as well as for Danube Programme. - a kind of \u201erisk fund - options need to be further analysed.", "Image XResolution": "37", "Image YResolution": "37", "Image ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Centimeter", "Image Software": "SlidePlayer", "Image YCbCrPositioning": "Centered"}