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

Maria Daniella Marouda 67 emergency support in mainland camps /shelters and cash payments through ESI to urban setting integration and AMIF) should have occurred in 28/2/2018, lack of exit strategies and preparedness led to an extension of the mechanism for another year until March 2019. Summarizing, the success factors of the mechanism, included flexibility, a ho- listic approach taken together with the EU agenda on Asylum and Migration, and constructive relations with cooperation partners, NGOs, local authorities. On the other hand, obstacles were both strategic, political and operational. Whether be- cause of the lack of a master plan, or of an exit strategy and sustainability, as well because of the limited experience and resources of the national authorities to re- spond to such a high influx of migrants, huge funds and a high number of ECHO partners started working on the ground without a master plan. Resource capacity and working methods among framework partners and between them and national authorities need to be redesigned, e.g. with pre-existing relevant model -agree- ments. For any future re-activation of a relevant concept or mechanism one needs to take into account the need for a better coordination among EU institutions. This gap is both acknowledged by ECHO as well as by DG HOME 60 . However, the question of how to proceed in the future in a similar situation remains substantially disputed. ECHO supports a possible reactivation of ESI, whereas DG ΗOΜΕ, proposes the es- tablishment of a (new) emergency aid reserve, shared responsibility with national authorities and to cover as a Directorate the gap of emergency assistance through “drafting news lines for covering emergency funding in a 100% coverage to support actions taken prior to the submission of grant application (retroactivity)” 61 , there- fore, a substitute for ESI, working within DG HOME and not DG ECHO. How this will affect the future remains unknown and has not been discussed in any relevant evaluation. Specific proposals to improve the mechanism would need to take into account: — A better mapping of roles, divisions of responsibility, policies and institutions, and all the different funding streams, objectives, programing, active on the Member State where a humanitarian aid scheme will be provided. A clear divi- sion of roles between e.g. HOME, ECHO or any other institution in the EU should be clear. Coordination is important, but only if there is a decision on which in- stitution is leading and what are the challenges in the implementation of differ- ent objectives. 60. It is “important to avoid overlap with funding provided through other EU institutions by establishing dividing lines and effective coordination between AMIF, BMVI, ISF etcv(asylum, border, internal security), see p. 26 Report of DH HOME European Com- mission 6/2018. 61. Ibidem p.40.