REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/369 on the provision of emergency support within the Union
Date: 2017-03-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO), European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, EU financial instrument, EU migration policy, Greece, aid to refugees, emergency aid, financial aid, illegal migration, migrant, refugee

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.3.2017  COM(2017) 131 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/369 on the provision of emergency support within the Union  
 
 
Table of contents 

I. 

II. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 

Benefits accruing from the Emergency Support Regulation .................................... 4 

1)  Added value of the Instrument for emergency support within the Union ................................. 5 

a. 

b. 

Speed in the delivery of assistance ......................................................................................... 5 

Experienced humanitarian partners addressing the needs of the affected population ......... 5 

c.  A clear focus on humanitarian assistance ............................................................................... 5 

d.  A complement to existing capacities ....................................................................................... 5 

e. 

The availability of proven expertise and monitoring capacity ................................................ 6 

2)  Outputs and results ..................................................................................................................... 6 

a. 

Provision of shelter .................................................................................................................. 7 

b.  Winterisation activities ............................................................................................................ 7 

c. 

Cash assistance ........................................................................................................................ 7 

d.  Protection activities ................................................................................................................. 8 

e. 

Education ................................................................................................................................. 8 

f.  Delivery of health services ...................................................................................................... 8 

g. 

Provision of food, non-food items and other activities .......................................................... 8 

III.  Coordination and communication ............................................................................... 9 

1)  Coordination of the response to the refugee and migration crisis at EU level ........................... 9 

2)  Coordination and cooperation with the affected Member State ............................................... 9 

3)  Coordination between partner organisations ........................................................................... 10 

4)  Communication concerning emergency support actions in Greece ......................................... 10 

IV.  The way forward ......................................................................................................... 10 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
I. 

Introduction 

In  2015  and  2016,  close  to  1.1  million  persons,  who  may  be  in  need  of  international 
protection, and irregular migrants (hereafter referred to as 'refugees and migrants') made their 
way to the European Union (EU) along the Eastern Mediterranean route. At the peak of the 
refugee crisis in summer 2015, 10 000 migrants and refugees were arriving in Greece every 
day. This sudden influx created a humanitarian emergency within the EU.  

While  the  EU  has  already  established  financial  instruments  to  assist  Member  States  in 
responding  to  different  types  of  internal  challenges  and  express  solidarity  with  disaster-
stricken  regions,  the  exceptional  scale  of  the  refugee  crisis  demonstrated  that  none  of  them 
was  fully  suitable  to  address  the  wide-ranging  humanitarian  needs  in  the  EU.  One  aspect 
underlined in  the  Commission's  Communication  on  the  State  of  Play of  Implementation  the 
Priority Actions under the European Agenda on Migration1 is the need for the EU to establish 
the  capacity  to  provide  humanitarian  assistance  within  the  EU  in  order  to  support  Member 
States facing large numbers of refugees and migrants. A flexible financial tool with a quick 
response capacity based on European solidarity and the ability to mobilise existing expertise 
was needed.   

In this context, on 19 February 2016 the European Council called the Commission to 'put in 
place  the  capacity  for  the  EU  to  provide  humanitarian  assistance  internally,  in  cooperation 
with organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), to 
support countries facing large numbers of refugees and migrants, building on the experience 
of the EU Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department'.2   

On  2  March  2016,  the  Commission  adopted  its  Proposal  for  Council  Regulation  (EU) 
2016/369  on  the  provision  of  emergency  support  within  the  Union.3  The  Regulation  was 
adopted by the Council on 15 March 2016.4  

As called for by the European Council, the Regulation builds upon the solid experience that 
the  Commission's  Directorate-General  for  European  Civil  Protection  and  Humanitarian  Aid 
Operations (ECHO) has acquired over many years in its fields of competence, allowing it to 
use  in  the  Union  its  know-how  acquired  from  the  actions  it  performs  in  third  countries. 
Moreover,  the  Regulation  aims  not  only  to  address  the  exceptional  humanitarian  challenges 
that have emerged from the ongoing migratory pressures at the Union's external borders, but 
also to cater for any type of natural or man-made disasters with a wide-ranging humanitarian 
impact  within  the  EU.  Therefore,  the  Regulation  also  provides  that  all  EU-financed 
emergency support shall be granted and implemented in compliance with the internationally 
agreed  fundamental  humanitarian  principles  of  humanity,  neutrality,  impartiality  and 
independence. 

Furthermore, in order to maximise efficiency, the Regulation foresees that the implementation 
of  emergency  response  operations  shall  be  performed  by  partner  organisations5  with  which 
the  Commission  has  signed  Framework  Partnership  Agreements  or  a  Financial  and 
Administrative  Framework  Agreement.  At  the  same  time,  given  that  emergency  support  is 
provided on the territory of an EU Member State, specific requirements apply. In particular, 

1 COM(2016) 85 final, Brussels, 10.02.2016 
2 European Council Conclusions EUCO 1/16, Brussels, 18-19 February 2016 
3 COM(2016) 115 final, Brussels, 2.03.2016 
4 OJ L 70, 16.3.2016, p. 1 
5  These  include  international  organisations,  non-profit  non-governmental  organisations,  as  well  as  specialised 
services of Member States 

3 

 
 
                                                            
the emergency assistance must be provided 'in support of, and complementary to, the actions 
of  the  affected  Member  State'6,  with  which  close  cooperation  and  consultation  must  be 
ensured. 

The legal base stipulates that the emergency support is activated for a period of three years to 
16 March 2019 for the management of the humanitarian impact of the refugee and migration 
crisis.  

Shortly  after  the  adoption  of  the  Council  Regulation,  the  situation  on  the  Eastern 
Mediterranean  route  changed  dramatically.  Since  the  EU-Turkey  Statement  of  18  March 
20167,  irregular  crossings  from  Turkey  to  Greece  have  decreased  sharply  with  an  average 
arrival  of  79  persons  per  day  until  6  March  20178.  However,  the  temporary  introduction  of 
border controls at internal borders of some Member States and external borders of some other 
countries  along  the  Eastern  Mediterranean  route  left  over  62 000  persons  of  concern  in 
Greece,  including  over  14  000  on  the  islands9.  This  led  to  significant  humanitarian  needs 
including  food  assistance,  shelter,  healthcare,  water,  sanitation,  hygiene  (WASH),  non-food 
items (NFIs) and protection. 

It  should  be  noted  that  in  2016,  Greece  was  the  only  Member  State  that  met  the  two 
'eligibility' conditions set out in the Regulation: 

 

the  exceptional  scale  and  impact  of  the  disaster  give  rise  to  severe  wide-ranging 
humanitarian consequences in one or more Member States; and  

  no other instrument available to Member States and to the Union is sufficient.  

As  a  result,  all  the  actions  funded  under  this  Regulation  to  date  were  exclusively  aimed  at 
tackling the humanitarian situation in Greece. 

In accordance with Article 8(1) of the Regulation, this report aims to provide an overview of 
the  key  impact  of  the  Instrument  for  emergency  support  within  the  Union  (ESI)  since  its 
activation, an analysis of the main challenges encountered, and an outline of planned future 
activities.  

II.  Benefits accruing from the Emergency Support Regulation  

Based on the direction given by the Greek authorities, who remain ultimately responsible for 
the  management  of  the  refugee  and  migration  crisis  in  Greece,  the  Regulation  has  allowed 
humanitarian  actors 
the  humanitarian 
consequences  of  this  crisis.  It  has  led  to  tangible  results  across  all  sectors  for  more  than 
45 000  beneficiaries  spread  across  more  than  30  sites  on  the  islands  and  in  the  mainland in 
Greece.  

to  swiftly  contribute  to 

the  management  of 

The key strengths of this new tool and the main operational outputs are outlined below.  

6 See Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2016/369  
7 See  http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/07-eu-turkey-meeting-statement/ 
8 Based on data provided by Greek authorities to the SRSS 
9  Data  from  28/02/2017,  according  to  Greek  authorities  :  http://mindigital.gr/index.php/προσφυγικό-ζήτημα-
refugee-crisis/1009-summary-statement-of-refugee-flows-03-03-2017  

4 

 
 
                                                            
1)  Added value of the Instrument for emergency support within the Union  

The ESI was designed to respond to severe humanitarian consequences resulting from acute 
crises.  In  2016-2017,  it  enabled  the  Union  to  provide  appropriate  and  timely  support  for 
refugees and migrants present in Greece. The inherent design features include: 

a.  Speed in the delivery of assistance  

The ESI relies on procedures adapted and staff trained to respond to emergency situations all 
over  the  world.  Following  a  needs  assessment  to  determine  funding  priorities,  the 
Commission announced a first allocation of EUR 83 million10 to eight partner organisations 
on 19 April 2016, just five weeks after the adoption of the Regulation. With immediate effect 
as of the signature of contracts and only few days after the budgetary authority had provided 
initial  funding,  shelter,  wash,  health  services,  protection  and  education  were  already  being 
provided on the ground.  

b.  Experienced  humanitarian  partners  addressing  the  needs  of  the  affected 

population 

Assistance is implemented by experienced humanitarian partners - United Nations agencies, 
international  organisations  and  non-governmental  organisations,  whose  skills,  professional 
expertise and sound management in rapidly responding to humanitarian needs, have led to the 
signature of framework agreements with the Commission. So far fourteen partners, all already 
active in Greece from an early stage of the refugee crisis, have been allocated EU funding by 
the  Commission.  These  partners  also  ensure  that  assistance  is  provided  in  respect  of 
international humanitarian principles. 

c.  A clear focus on humanitarian assistance 

While  other  existing  EU  instruments,  such  as  the  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund 
(AMIF), the Internal Security Fund (ISF), European Fund for the Most Deprived (FEAD) or 
when  it  comes  to  natural  disasters,  the  EU  Solidarity  Fund  (EUSF),  can  provide  significant 
financial resources for assistance within Europe, they rely heavily on the administrative and 
operational  capacities  of  national  governments  which  may  already  be  under  considerable 
financial and economic pressure. Furthermore, these instruments are not designed to cater for 
the purely humanitarian needs of large groups of refugees and migrants. 

Similarly, the existing European Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) provides much 
needed  support  through  voluntary  contribution  of  assets  from  Member  States,  but  it  is  not 
suitably  equipped  to  address  the  wide-ranging  structural  humanitarian  needs  resulting  from 
the refugee crisis. 

Contrary  to  these  instruments,  the  ESI  can  rapidly  finance  well-targeted  humanitarian 
assistance in emergency situations.   

d.  A complement to existing capacities 

In order to benefit from emergency support, affected Member States do not need to set up new 
structures  or  institutional  mechanisms.  The  ESI  rather  complements  the  humanitarian 
response with the provision of additional human and financial resources. Operations in Greece 
have  demonstrated  that  efficient  communication  channels  and  an  effective  coordination 

10 See IP/16/1447, Brussels, 19.04.2016  

5 

 
 
                                                            
mechanism  backed  up  with  the  corresponding  personnel  in  the  responsible  national 
authorities, are crucial to the success of the operation.  

e.  The availability of proven expertise and monitoring capacity  

The  Commission  has  a  network  of  sectoral  and  project  field  experts  throughout  the  world. 
Three of these experts were redeployed to monitor and coordinate the funded actions on the 
ground. The presence of these experts is crucial to support humanitarian partners in their work 
and to liaise with the Greek authorities. This prompt action was key to the rapid roll-out of 
EU-funded projects. In addition, some of the Commission’s global thematic experts (e.g. on 
health services, protection and gender issues) were also sent to Greece in order to 'kick-start' 
operations in their areas of expertise. 

2)  Outputs and results 

In  2016,  the  main  operational  priorities  were  the  provision  of  shelter  and  winterisation,  of 
assistance  through  cash  transfers,  of  protection  of  unaccompanied  minors  (UAMs),  of 
education in emergencies and the delivery of healthcare services11. 

Overall, EUR 191.9 million was contracted in 2016, as follows: 

Partner12  Contract Amount 

OXFAM-NL  
STC-UK 
DRC-DK 
IRC-UK 
UNHCR-CH 
MDM-BE 
ASB-DE 
IFRC-CH 
NRC-NO 
IOM-CH 
CARE-DE 
MCE-UK 
UNICEF-US 
TDH-CH 
TOTAL 

6 000 000 
7 000 000 
14 870 000 
16 500 000 
65 000 000 
7 000 000 
6 800 000 
17 000 000 
11 000 000 
17 800 000 
3 500 000 
6 250 000 
8 500 000 
4 700 000 
191 920 000 

Table: EU funding contracted per partner in 2016 

11 Emergency Support Financing Decision Operational Priorities, available at http://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-
site/files/esop.pdf 
12  OXFAM,  United  Nations  High  Commissioner  for  Refugees  (UNHCR),  International  Organisation  for 
Migration (IOM), the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), the International 
Rescue  Committee  (IRC),  the  Danish  Refugee  Council  (DRC),  Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund  (ASB),  Save  the 
Children  (STC),  Médecins  du  Monde  (MDM),  Norwegian  Refugee  Council  (NRC)  and  United  Nations 
Children's Fund (UNICEF), Care International (CARE), Mercy Corps (MCE) and Terre des Hommes (TDH). 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
a.  Provision of shelter 

The  Commission  has  allocated  EUR  80  million  to  UNHCR,  IOM,  IRC,  IFRC,  ASB,  DRC, 
NRC  and  OXFAM  to  provide  shelter  for  over  35 000  persons  of  concern  in  Greece.  In 
coordination with the Greek authorities, ESI-funded works have taken place in 30 temporary 
and permanent sites out of 49 sites identified by the Greek government in the mainland. As of 
14 February 2017, those sites were hosting 11 568 residents out of a total capacity of 18 510. 
Activities  include  site  development  works,  the  provision  of  tents  (initial  stages),  the 
installation  of  containers,  and  the  winterisation  and  renovation  of  existing  buildings.  The 
response also included funding for the rehabilitation, upgrade and construction of water and 
sanitation services (WASH) heating and electricity systems and facilities. 

b.  Winterisation activities  

Partner  organisations  have  engaged  in  actions  that  contribute  to  winterisation  and  include 
shelter  and  WASH  interventions  and  maintenance  that  have  upgraded  living  conditions 
significantly  and  provide  a  safe  shelter  during  the  winter  months.  All  of  the  30  ESI-funded 
sites are winterised. Activities undertaken include improved insulation, installation of heating 
devices and safety upgrades to mitigate the increased risk of fire.  

The UNHCR alone has been assigned the role of infrastructure development and winterisation 
for  14  sites  in  the  mainland13  by  the  Greek  government.  The  winterisation  operations  of 
UNHCR-assigned  sites  vary  from  one  location  to  another.  In  some  cases,  the  UNHCR 
installed  prefabricated  houses14,  whereas  in  other  sites  the  UNHCR  rehabilitated  existing 
buildings and upgraded facilities15. 

Other examples include: 

 

IFRC  has  provided  emergency  shelter  in  the  temporary  sites  of  Softex  and  Cherso, 
including tents, flooring pallets, isolation, as well as heaters and kerosene. 

  ASB  has  connected  buildings  to  the  electricity  network  needed  for  connection  of 

lighting and heating to the spaces in Diavata and Anagnostopoulou. 

 

IOM  is  implementing  reconstruction  or  renovation  works  in  the  following  6  sites: 
Agios Andreas I, Agios Andreas II, Thiva, Serres, Drama, Kavala. 

As  a  direct  winterisation  measure,  a  number  of  people  staying  at  inadequate  or  incomplete 
sites have also been transferred to hotels or apartments. As of 28 February 2017, the UNHCR 
alone has transferred over of 3 100 persons. The population living in these sites was exposed 
to  adverse  weather  conditions  and  accommodated  in  unsuitable  shelters,  which  exacerbated 
health  risks.  Winterisation  operations  implemented  to  date  have  been  estimated  at 
approximately EUR 52 million.  

c.  Cash assistance  

The  total  cash  assistance  provided  to  persons  of  concern  in  Greece  in  2016  was  EUR  28.7 
million. This amount covers a set of basic needs, replacing in-kind distribution of relief items 

13 These sites are Alexandria, Nea Kavala, Katsikas, Filippiada, Lagadikia, Redestos, Petra Olympou, Schisto, 
Andravida, Eleonas, Elefsina, Kipselohori, Thermophiles and Rafina. 
14  150  in    Alexandria,  180  in  Lagkadikia,  100  in  Filippiada,  100  in  Katsikas  and  180  in  Schisto,  180  in  Nea 
Kavala.  
15 In Andravida, Elefsina, Thermopiles, Eleonas, Rafina.  

7 

 
 
                                                            
except food aid. When sufficient kitchen facilities are ready at sites, multi-purpose grants can 
cover  the  whole  of  refugee  households'  basic  needs  in  Greece,  including  food  aid.  By 
February  2017,  over  35 000  people  living  in  55  sites  in  the  mainland  and  on  the  islands  as 
well as in two urban locations have received cash assistance, which is provided through pre-
paid cards. Cash assistance gives dignity to refugees and migrants by enhancing their freedom 
of  choice; having a direct economic benefit for the local host communities (where food  but 
also non-food items are purchased) and provide a much more cost-effective solution. 

d.  Protection activities  

Under the ESI, the Commission awarded EUR 33 million to ASB, OXFAM, IRC, UNHCR, 
DRC, NRC, IFRC, STC, MCE, CARE, TDH and UNICEF for protection activities in Greece. 
From  this  total,  EUR  23  million  has  been  allocated  for  child  protection  activities  for  over 
21 000  refugee  and  migrant  minors residing  in Greece16.  The  activities include  provision  of 
psycho-social  support,  child-friendly  spaces,  case  management  systems,  family  tracing  and 
417 emergency spaces for UAMs in dedicated facilities, in alignment with Greek standards of 
care. Two-thirds of children residing in camps benefit from child-friendly spaces, which are 
dedicated  safe  spaces  for  children  to  gather,  play  and  regain  a  sense  of  normality,  while  in 
parallel, allowing for  the  identification of at-risk children requiring  specialised support  by a 
team  of  professional  social  workers  and  facilitating  closer  contact  with  parents.  Other 
activities  included  the  protection  of  women,  elderly  and  disabled  persons  and  ensured  that 
refugees and migrants are well informed on their status and rights. 

e.  Education  

EUR 2.8  million has been allocated  to IOM for the transport of children to schools  and the 
distribution of school kits to some of the refugee children of school-going age (of 4-17 years) 
residing in Greece, in line with the strategy of the Greek Ministry of Education to give access 
to  education  for  all.  In  parallel,  EUR  7.7  million  was  provided  to  support  the  delivery  of 
complementary non-formal education17 activities to over 9 000 children residing in camps and 
urban centres, which include basic maths and literacy lessons, and classes in Greek, English 
and refugee children's mother tongue language. 

f.  Delivery of health services  

Almost  EUR  15  million  of  emergency  support  provided  primary  health  care,  specialised 
healthcare, psycho-social support and referral to hospital to more than 38 100 persons in 26 
camps  in the mainland and on the islands during 2016. An average of over 10 000 medical 
consultations  has  been  provided  every  month,  in  addition  to  vaccinations  and  psycho-social 
support.  For  example,  as  regards  primary  healthcare,  IFRC  has  provided  67 994  new 
consultations18;  ASB  –  15 000  consultations;  and  MDM  –  25 966  consultations.  As  regards 
vaccinations, 2 763 children have been vaccinated by IFRC and 1 527 by MDM, in addition 
to  vaccinations  done  by  the  Ministry  of  Health.  All  the  patients  who  needed  referral  to 
hospital have been transferred.  

g.  Provision of food, non-food items and other activities 

16 Data as of 31 January 2017. https://www.unicef.org/ceecis/General_data_January_2017_(1).pdf  
17 Non-formal education activities are taking place outside formal national systems (the latter cannot be funded 
by  ESI).  Amongst  other,  they  allow  those  who  have  missed  several  years  of  schooling  to  catch  up  and 
subsequently to be integrated into the formal education system. 
18 People visiting either for the first time or for a different medical reason. 

8 

 
 
                                                            
EUR  18.6  million  of  emergency  support  was  allocated  on  provision  of  food  and  non-food 
items. In 2016 and the first two months of 2017, UNHCR  alone has provided over 820 000 
core relief items (blankets, clothing, rain ponchos, hats, gloves, etc). Further EUR 6.2 million 
has been allocated to partner organisations and covers site management support (one partner 
per site), support to operations, as well as coordination actions.  

III.  Coordination and communication  

Good  cooperation  at  all  levels  is  the  most  important  factor  in  the  delivery  of  meaningful 
results.  In  particular,  partner  organisations  highlighted  that  successful  results  were  achieved 
where good cooperation with the Greek authorities as well as local partners was ensured. On 
the contrary, delays in the humanitarian response took place where such cooperation was not 
optimal  (e.g.  in  shelter  provision,  winterisation  and  electrification  of  sites,  food  provision, 
security issues).  

Communication at all levels is another important factor. Improving communication with local 
communities and with beneficiaries of assistance is crucial for the efficiency and effectiveness 
of  the  response.  External  communication  is  necessary  to  ensure  adequate  visibility  and 
understanding  of  the  EU  response.  In  2017,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  work  with 
humanitarian partners in addressing this. 

1)  Coordination of the response to the refugee and migration crisis at EU level 

Actions  under  the  ESI  need  to  be  implemented  in  full  synergy  and  complementarity  with 
other  financial  instruments,  in  particular  with  those  offering  different  forms  of  emergency 
assistance.  In  2015  and  2016,  the  EU  was  by  far  the  largest  donor  of  humanitarian  aid 
addressing the refugee crisis in Greece, accounting for 77% of the total funding.19 In order to 
maximise impacts and to avoid duplication or gaps, a high level of coordination is essential 
within the Commission and with other EU institutions, agencies and bodies, and with relevant 
authorities of affected Members States. 

2)  Coordination and cooperation with the affected Member State  

The Commission is required to maintain close cooperation and consultation with the affected 
Member  State,  particularly  as  regards  the  selection  of  partners.  In  addition,  given  that 
emergency assistance is provided in support of and in complementarity with the actions of the 
affected  Member  State,  the  Commission  and  its  partners  have  to  work  in  line  with  the  plan 
defined  by  the  Greek  authorities.  While  the  EU  has  significant  experience  from  funding 
humanitarian  assistance  in  third  countries,  this  instrument  provided  a  first  opportunity  to 
undertake humanitarian actions in an EU Member State. It needs also to be borne in mind that 
the Greek authorities had not experienced a humanitarian crisis of this amplitude before.  

To facilitate a more structured coordination with the Ministry of Migration Policy (MoMP), 
as  of  May  2016,  the  Commission  has  been  holding  regular  video-conference  meetings  with 
the  participation  of  Ministry  representatives  and  of  all  partner  organisations.  This  practice 
ensures  a  full  flow  of  information  on  the  decisions  of  the  national  authorities  and  partner 
organisations  on  the  ground  and  enables  discussion  of  the  different  priorities,  as  well  as 
identification of immediate solutions to contingent problems.  

19 United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs ('UN OCHA'), September 2016 

9 

 
 
                                                            
Clear forward planning by the authorities of the affected Member State is an important factor 
for  the  establishment  of  good  coordination,  which  is  in  turn  a  precondition  for  effective, 
efficient and coherent humanitarian action.  

In  terms  of  financial  planning,  much  progress  has  been  made.  In  February  2017,  the  Greek 
government  and  relevant  Commission  services  agreed  on  a  financial  planning  covering 
reception facilities and needs of refugees and migrants with funding from the national budget, 
AMIF and ESI.  

Progress  has  been  made,  and  coordination  with  national  authorities  who  are  the  ones 
ultimately responsible for the response, remains crucial for the effective and timely delivery 
of aid. This will remain a priority throughout 2017, with a particular focus on better planning 
and operational decision-making.  

3)  Coordination between partner organisations 

In 2016, 14 partner organisations signed contracts with the Commission for implementation of 
actions funded under the Regulation in Greece. These organisations in turn work with several 
implementing  partners.  Given  that  beneficiaries  are  spread  across  the  country,  in  rental 
accommodation  and  formal  and  informal  sites  in  the  mainland  and  on  the  islands,  efficient 
coordination is essential.  

A  series  of  thematic  working  groups  were  set  up  at  both  local  and  national  levels  and 
information was centralised using IT tools.20 The Commission and the Greek authorities take 
part  in  these  working  groups,  which  facilitate  information  exchange  and  coordination,  and 
actively support the authorities in coordinating the humanitarian response.  

Maintaining  effective  coordination  between  all  humanitarian  actors,  while  maintaining  the 
highest standards of response, will be a key priority for 2017. 

4)  Communication concerning emergency support actions in Greece 

For  EU  citizens,  the  ESI  is  a  clear  demonstration  of  solidarity,  proving  that  the  EU  can 
address  pressing  humanitarian  challenges  in  a  collective  effort.  In  this  context,  the 
Commission  is  actively  promoting  effective  communication  and  visibility  by  humanitarian 
partners, and has also increased its own communication activities, notably on its website and 
on social media.  

In  addition,  communication  needs  to  also  target  both  local  communities  and  the  migrant 
population in Greece in order to increase their involvement and better tackle opposition from 
these groups to ongoing operations. 

While much progress has been achieved in 2016, more efforts and results are expected from 
partner  organisations  in  2017  on  outreach  activities  and  communication  with  migrant  and 
local populations. 

IV.  The way forward 

While  a  lot  has  been  achieved  in  terms  of  addressing  the  most  urgent  humanitarian  needs 
identified in Greece, a number of gaps still need to be addressed as outlined in greater detail 
in  the  2017  Emergency  Support  Operational  Priorities  document  (ESOP)21.  Emergency 

20 See http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php 
21 See http://ec.europa.eu/echo 

10 

 
 
                                                            
support will be implemented fully in line with the 2017 financial planning agreed between the 
Greek government and relevant Commission services, so as to ensure complementarity of all 
instruments and activities. 

As  regards  shelter,  refugees  and  migrants  are  hosted  in  different  sites  with  varying  quality 
standards, including both temporary and longer-term housing solutions. The priority for 2017 
is to shift towards urban rental schemes with access to social services, as this provides a more 
dignified accommodation in cases of protracted stay.  

Hot food rations have been provided daily in refugee camps in 2016 and the first months of 
2017. In order to allow persons of concern to purchase and prepare their own food, the aim is 
to  progressively  extend  the  multi-purpose  cash  system,  building  on  the  cash  assistance 
programmes  for  non-food  items  developed  in  2016.  This  system  will  complement  the 
infrastructure investments in the electricity network and communal kitchen facilities that were 
already made or are underway in sites. 

In  the  field  of  healthcare,  first  aid  capacity  and  emergency  healthcare  with  appropriate 
referrals  to  national  health  system  need  to  be  ensured.  Access  to  a  basic  package  of  health 
services  should  be  ensured  and  facilitated  with  transportation  and  translation.  Vaccination 
campaigns need to be expanded.  

Water  and  sanitation  facilities  remain  insufficient  in  many  locations.  Therefore,  the 
provision of such facilities needs to continue.  

Concerning  protection,  activities  related  to  child  protection  in  emergencies  will  be 
prioritised, such as family tracing and reunification, psycho-social needs of children affected 
by  conflict  and  displacement.  Interpretation  services  to  facilitate  information  sharing  with 
refugees  and  migrants  in  their  own  language(s)  will  also  be  financed.  Beyond  minors, 
protection  needs  include  case  management  of  vulnerable  persons,  such  as  people  with 
disabilities, single mothers, etc.  

As regards education, needs remain in the area of non-formal education to complement the 
Greek  government's  efforts  to  provide  public  education  to  all  refugee  and  migrant  children. 
Refugee  and  migrant  youths  (age  15-24)  also  need  access  to  quality  and  inclusive  learning 
opportunities, as well as vocational training and language courses for adults to build life skills 
and support a successful integration into the European society. 

The  provision  of  emergency  support  in  Greece  began  immediately  after  the  adoption  of  the 
Regulation. A year later, there are still needs on the ground and it is therefore not advisable to 
discontinue  the  provision  of  assistance  at  this  stage.  Nonetheless,  different  options  for  a 
gradual phase-out and handover of the response to the Greek authorities should be considered. 
In particular, towards the end of 2017, a discussion with partners should take place in order to 
plan an exit strategy for 2018, given that the Regulation was only activated for a three-year 
period.  

During  its  first  year  of  implementation,  the  benefits  of  actions  under  the  Regulation  are 
evident.  The  inherent  flexibility  in  the  Regulation,  which  for  instance  allowed  the 
Commission to engage with well-established and experienced partners, facilitated addressing 
the humanitarian needs in Greece. The transfer of knowledge of operations in third countries 
to an EU Member State has also contributed to the rapid response.  

11