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

64 EU Solidarity in managing migration flows through ECHO in Greece 3/2016-3/2019 cal choices in Brussels and Athens did not challenge the unavailability of funds for stranded refugees and migrants in Lesvos, Chios, Samos, Lemnos and Kos. Managing refugee and migration flows in the EU has been and continues to be po- litical. Leaving a few countries -in the South of the EU- to deal with both the po- litical and the humanitarian challenges of a European issue did put disproportion- ate burdens on certain countries they cannot and should not assume. Could there have been a better solution to address these challenges? Integrating humanitarian aid in a political framework of building a Common Asylum and Migration Policy was certainly not a panacea. Nor was there a way to implement side by side different agendas (political within DG HOME, humanitarian within ECHO). If there was an improved coordination among different institutions, while maintaining the divid- ing budget lines, the distinctive objectives and the management hierarchies, may- be the overall results would have been even better. However, the answer would still have to be reluctant if humanitarian principles connected to any humanitar- ian assistance by default were to be compromised for aid to substitute politics. 4.2. Channeling funding through IOs, specialized UN agencies and NGOs created an additional coordination challenge for the national authorities and Greece Flexibility of the legal framework and channeling aid through framework humani- tarian partners of ECHO, was an asset of ESI, however, it was initially hampered because of a weak collaboration between the EU institutions, the national au- thorities, concerned local authorities and NGOs or other stakeholders. This is also acknowledged as an obstacle in the evaluation of the mechanism by the European Commission. In reality, what ESI demanded was an additional burden for Greek authorities, who had to establish multiple coordination schemes. They had to co- ordinate governmental institutions working on the management of the migration flows, the handling of first reception registration / asylum requests, the border systems (EURODAC and Schengen) plus integration needs of migrants in mainland (access to education, health, accommodation). They also had to coordinate with local authorities, and with international organizations and INGOs, working with ECHO grants, as well as to monitor EU funding from different sources. No inven- tory existed at the time for NGOs working on the ground, and most IOs did not have host agreements (e.g. on tax redemptions, or immunities). National authori- ties in Greece were reluctant to sign host agreements with IOs and NGOs tailored esi_2017.pdf ; and realigned following the governmental financial planning addressed to ECHO, see second assessment https://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-site/files/ esi_2017.pdf; Financial Decision for 2018, adopted on December 2017 https:// ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-site/files/financing_decision_2018_esi.pdf ; First Round of financial priorities November 2017, see https://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-site/ files/esop_2018.pdf