ΑΛΛΗΛΕΓΓΥΗ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΕ: ΕΞΕΛΙΞΕΙΣ ΣΤΟ ΠΕΔΙΟ ΤΗΣ ΠΡΟΣΦΥΓΙΚΗΣ ΠΡΟΣΤΑΣΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΡΟΚΛΗΣΕΙΣ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΕ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ

58 EU Solidarity in managing migration flows through ECHO in Greece 3/2016-3/2019 the disaster is such that it gives rise to “severe wide-ranging humanitarian circum- stances”, in one or more EU Member States, where no other instrument is avail- able and “only in exceptional circumstances”. 18. Two were the eligibility criteria for the activation of the mechanism which both applied in 2016 in Greece: a) an unprecedented disaster with serious humanitarian consequences, and b) no other way to respond due to the nature of the crisis that could affect the financial situation in a member state. According to the internal evaluation of the mechanism - released before the end of the program in November 2018 - ESI was the most relevant tool to deliver an emergency response of this nature and scale, “acting in a spirit of solidarity” aiming to address the “basic needs of disaster-stricken people within the EU” and “contribute to reducing the economic impact of this disaster on member states” 45 . As mentioned in the Regulation itself, the additional funding mechanism was necessary in 2016, notwithstanding other funding available, such as the European Solidarity Fund 46 for disaster-stricken countries. There existed “no appropriate mechanism” to address on a “sufficiently predictable and independent basis” the humanitarian needs of people within the Union, through the provision of “food assistance, emergency healthcare, shelter, water and sanitation, protection and education”. 3.2. Working with framework agreement partners to achieve time and cost-effective assistance It is important to note that the ESI would be conducted with the same modalities as if assistance was provided outside the EU, through framework partners and in compliance with humanitarian principles enshrined in international humanitarian law, financed by the general EU budget and through other public or private dona- tions. The choice to work with partners that had already signed relevant agree- ments with ECHO was decided in order to be able to dispatch funding ASAP, there- fore the grants were made available to actors already having contracts with ECHO. On the other hand, understanding the problematic nature of such a decision in a member state with a high number of actors already working on the refugee/ mi- gration management sector, with a sound knowledge of the context and expertise, the European Commission and the Council “encouraged international partners of ECHO” to work “with local NGOs” in order to maximize synergies. An advice that was followed but with serious delays. 45. See the Evaluation report at footnote40. 46. European Parliament and the Council, Regulation 2012/2002. The Regulation on the ESI, also made a reference to the Civil Protection Mechanism of the EU (Decision 1313/2013/ EU) which at the time -before rescEU- was depending on voluntary contribution of member states. The mechanism was activated for the provision directly my member states of relief items (tents, etc) also through such mechanism…