OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Greece 2019

Please cite this publication as:
OECD (2019), OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Greece 2019, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311893-en

Metadata, Legal and Rights

ISBN: 978-92-64-31188-6 (print) - 978-92-64-31189-3 (pdf) - 978-92-64-31274-6 (HTML) - 978-92-64-31273-9 (epub)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311893-en

OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews

ISSN: 2309-7124 (print) - 2309-7132 (online)

This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries.

This document, as well as any data and any map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Revised version, February 2019

Details of revisions available at: http://www.oecd.org/about/publishing/Corrigendum_Peer_Review_of_Greece.pdf

Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/about/publishing/corrigenda.htm.

© OECD 2019

You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgement of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at info@copyright.com or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at contact@cfcopies.com.

Conducting the Peer Review

The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) conducts periodic reviews of the individual development co-operation efforts of DAC members. The policies and programmes of each member are critically examined approximately once every five years, with six members examined annually. The OECD Development Co-operation Directorate provides analytical support, and develops and maintains, in close consultation with the Committee, the methodology and analytical framework - known as the Reference Guide - within which the peer reviews are undertaken.

The objectives of DAC peer reviews are to improve the quality and effectiveness of development co-operation policies and systems, and to promote good development partnerships for better impact on poverty reduction and sustainable development in developing countries. DAC peer reviews assess the performance of a given member, not just that of its development co-operation agency, and examine both policy and implementation. They take an integrated, system-wide perspective on the development co-operation and humanitarian assistance activities of the member under review.

The peer review is prepared by a team, consisting of representatives of the Secretariat working with officials from two DAC members who are designated as “examiners”. The country under review provides a memorandum setting out the main developments in its policies and programmes. Then the Secretariat and the examiners visit the capital to interview officials, parliamentarians, as well as civil society and non-governmental organisations’ representatives in the donor country to obtain a first-hand insight into current issues surrounding the development co-operation efforts of the member concerned. Field visits assess how members are implementing the major DAC policies, principles and concerns, and review operations in recipient countries, particularly with regard to poverty reduction, sustainability, gender equality and other aspects of participatory development, and local aid co-ordination. During the field visit, the team meets with representatives of the partner country’s administration, parliamentarians, civil society and other development partners.

The Secretariat then prepares a draft report on the member’s development co-operation which is the basis for the DAC review meeting at the OECD. At this meeting, senior officials from the member under review respond to questions formulated by the Committee in association with the examiners.

This review – containing both the main findings and recommendations of the Development Assistance Committee and the analytical report of the Secretariat – was prepared with examiners from Austria (Simone Knapp and Christina Stummer) and the Czech Republic (Petr Halaxa and Gabriela Boiteux Pilná) for the peer review of Greece on 28 November 2018. The Secretariat team consisted of John Egan, Ian Brand-Weiner, Cyprien Fabre, and Maria Almyraki. Mari Laikre provided logistical assistance to the review, and formatted and produced the report. The report was prepared under the supervision of Rahul Malhotra. Among other things, the review looks at how Greece has maintained its commitment to development co-operation during the economic and migration crises, and suggests that, as circumstances improve, Greece might build a new vision and create a focused, whole-of-government approach to development co-operation, and put in place the structures and systems that will enable it to achieve this vision.

Abbreviations and acronyms

COHAFA

Working Party on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid

CSO

Civil society organisation

DAC

OECD Development Assistance Committee

DG ECHO

Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations

DG Hellenic Aid

Directorate General of International Development Cooperation-Hellenic Aid of the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs

DG HOME

Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs

EOSDOS

Inter-Ministerial Committee for the Organization and Coordination of International Economic Relations

EU

European Union

FPA

Framework Partnerships Agreement

Frontex

European Border and Coast Guard Agency

GNI

Gross national income

GSGE

General Secretariat for Gender Equality

IOM

International Organization for Migration

NGO

Non-governmental organisation

OCHA

UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

ODA

Official development assistance

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals

UN

United Nations

UNHCR

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

YDAS

Directorate General of International Development Cooperation

Signs used

EUR

Euro

USD

United States dollars

( )

Secretariat estimate in whole or part

-

(Nil)

0.0

Negligible

..

Not available

…

Not available separately, but included in total

n.a.

Not applicable

p

Provisional

Slight discrepancies in totals are due to rounding.

Annual Exchange rate: 1 USD = EURO

2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
0.7550 | 0.7192 | 0.7780 | 0.7532 | 0.7537 | 0.9015 | 0.9043 | 0.8663

Greece’s aid at a glance

Figure 0.1. Greece’s aid at a glance

Source: OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) (n.d.), www.oecd.org/dac/stats.

Figure 0.2. Status of implementation of 2011 recommendations (see Annex A)

Context of the peer review of Greece

The current coalition government took office in September 2015, following a referendum held in July 2015 to decide Greece’s future in the Eurozone. The government is led by Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, from the Syriza Coalition of the Radical Left, with support from the nationalist Independent Greeks. The next national elections are slated for September 2019 (EIU, 2018).

The Greek economy was hit hard by the 2008 global financial crisis. By the beginning of 2010, Greece was no longer able to borrow. The countries of the euro area and the International Monetary Fund provided financial assistance to Greece between May 2010 and August 2018.1 During the first programme of financial assistance public sector salaries were reduced and a 1:5 ratio of recruitment to departures were introduced in the public sector.²

After nine years of deep recession, the Greek economy showed signs of stabilising in 2016 and grew by 1.3% in 2017. Growth is expected to continue, reaching 1.95% in 2018 and 2.3% in 2019. Unemployment has fallen since its 2013 peak of 27.5% reaching 20.9% in the fourth quarter of 2017. Nevertheless, the recession has pushed many people into poverty, and income inequality has risen. Tax and benefit reforms have materially improved the budget position, but the burden of adjustment has been uneven, and public debt is still very high (OECD, 2018a, 2018b).

Greece has a population of 11 million. Women comprise 53% of the foreign born population, which at 7% is below the OECD average (13%).

Greece is the main entry point to Europe for refugees and migrants travelling on the Eastern Mediterranean route. Illegal border crossings soared from an annual average of 45 404 over 2008-14 to 885 386 in 2015, subsequently dropping to 182 277 in 2016 and 42 305 in 2017.3 Between 1 January and 10 July 2018, an estimated 14 392 migrants arrived by sea.⁴ The number of asylum applications increased from 13 187 in 2015 to 51 053 in 2016, representing a 287% increase, and remained high through 2017 and 2018.5 In May 2018, there were more than 65 000 refugees and migrants in Greece, including around 17 000 on the islands.⁶

Compared to other OECD countries, Greece has a mixed performance across different dimensions of well-being. Material conditions in Greece are generally below the OECD average: the average net adjusted disposable income per household was just over half the OECD average in 2015; the employment rate was 52% in 2016, compared to the OECD average of 67%. Greece experiences some of the highest levels of labour market insecurity, job strain and long-term unemployment in the OECD, but the share of Greeks working very long hours (7%) is below the OECD average rate (13%). Greece also demonstrates a comparatively high share of well-being deprivations, with 15 out of 20 deprivation indicators – including income and wealth, housing conditions, education and skills, environmental quality and subjective well-being – ranking in the bottom-third (most deprived) of OECD countries (OECD, 2017).

Greece joined the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) in 1999; this DAC peer review is the country’s fourth.⁷ In the period since the 2011 peer review, Greece has experienced two significant crises – a severe and protracted economic downturn, and a refugee and migrant crisis – both of which have significantly impacted its development co-operation. As a consequence, official development assistance (ODA) dropped from USD 525 million (0.21% of gross national income (GNI)) in 2008 to a low of USD 191 million (0.10% of GNI) in 2013 (2016 constant USD). Preliminary figures for 2017 show ODA totalling USD 310 million (0.16% of GNI). While Greece continued to meet its multilateral commitments, bilateral ODA was limited to expenditure on scholarships; following the significant influx of migrants and asylum seekers in 2015, it was redirected to in-donor refugee costs.

With the exception of the recently-created Statistical Office in the Directorate General of International Development Cooperation (YDAS/DG Hellenic Aid), the institutional structure remains unchanged since the previous peer review. DG Hellenic Aid is one of seven Directorates General within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and comprises six directorates. DG Hellenic Aid is managed by a Director-General and supervised by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

References

EIU (2018), Greece Country Report, 29 March 2018, Economist Intelligence Unit, London.

Greek Ministry for Migration Policy (2018), Statistical Data of the Greek Asylum Service, http://asylo.gov.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Greek_Asylum_Service_Statistical_Data_EN.pdf

OECD (2018a), OECD Economic Surveys: Greece 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-grc-2018-en.

OECD (2018b), OECD Economic Outlook, Volume 2018 Issue 1, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_outlook-v2018-1-en.

OECD (2017), “How’s Life in Greece?”, OECD Better Life Initiative, November 2017, https://www.oecd.org/statistics/Better-Life-Initiative-country-note-Greece.pdf.

OECD (2013), OECD Development Assistance Peer Reviews: Greece 2011, OECD Development Assistance Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264117112-en.

OECD (2006), "DAC Peer Review of Greece", OECD Journal on Development, Vol. 7/4, OECD, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/journal_dev-v7-art40-en.

OECD (2002), Development Co-operation Review: Greece, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/dac/peer-reviews/2076414.pdf.

Notes

 1.  http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/financial-assistance-to-greece-2010-2018/.

 2. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/article/2016/greece-reducing-the-number-of-public-servants-latest-developments.

 3.  Data from the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex): https://frontex.europa.eu/along-eu-borders/migratory-routes/eastern-mediterranean-route/.

 4.  https://www.iom.int/news/mediterranean-migrant-arrivals-reach-48629-2018-deaths-reach-1422.

 5.  Greece received 58 642 asylum applications in 2017 and had received 41 358 applications by 31 August 2018 (Greek Ministry for Migration Policy, 2018).

 6.  http://www.unhcr.org/greece.html.

 7.  The three previous peer reviews were undertaken in 2002, 2006 and 2011 (OECD, 2002, 2006, 2013).

The DAC’s main findings and recommendations

Greece seeks to resolve challenges facing the Mediterranean, Southeast Europe and the Middle East, and advocates for a safe marine environment in the Eastern Mediterranean. The government wants to adopt a fairer, more sustainable development approach and will reflect the Sustainable Development Goals in its national development strategy.

Greece experienced two crises since the last peer review of its development co-operation: a severe economic recession resulting in significant cuts to the national budget, including official development assistance (ODA); and an ongoing refugee and migration crisis.

Greece maintained its commitment to development co-operation during the economic and migration crises. It met its commitments to European Union institutions and other multilateral organisations. It also mobilised resources and people to provide significant support to asylum seekers and refugees, and adapted its domestic policies to create conditions for peaceful co-existence between refugees, asylum seekers and the Greek population.

As the economy recovers, the government needs to take a number of steps to improve Greek development co-operation. Build a new vision for development that is supported by stakeholders with a keen interest in development, such as civil society organisations, the private sector and academics, and by the broader public. Update the law governing development co-operation and create a focused, whole-of-government approach, including to Greece’s multilateral partners. Determine its comparative advantage in a particular sector of humanitarian response. Restructure the Directorate General of International Development Cooperation-Hellenic Aid to meet its policy, programming and corporate objectives. Document the results achieved with ODA. Establish an evaluation unit and more efficient and effective systems to manage Greek ODA.

A severe economic recession and the migration crisis have significantly impacted Greece’s development co-operation

The Greek economy was hit hard by the 2008 global financial crisis, requiring financial assistance from the countries of the euro area and the International Monetary Fund between May 2010 and August 2018. Among the goals of the country’s economic adjustment programme were achieving savings in public-sector expenditure and undertaking public-administration reform.

Greece’s official development assistance (ODA) plummeted from an all-time high of USD 525 million in 2008 (0.21% of gross national income [GNI]) to USD 191 million (0.10% of GNI) in 2013, recovering to USD 310 million (0.16% of GNI) in 2017 (preliminary figures). Like other public-sector institutions, the Directorate General of International Development Cooperation-Hellenic Aid of the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DG Hellenic Aid) has faced significant constraints to staff recruitment (Sections 3.1, 4.3).

Bilateral ODA dropped from 44.4% of total ODA in 2008 to 18.3% in 2013. While Greece has kept up with its commitments to multilateral institutions since 2008, the bulk of its core funding (i.e. no less than 90% over 2009-16, compared with 61% in 2008) goes to the European Union (Sections 3.2, 3.3).

Greece’s positioning on the south-eastern border of the European Union makes it an attractive entry point for refugees seeking protection or migrants attempting to enter Europe irregularly. In 2015, arrivals of asylum seekers and irregular migrants in Greece represented 84% of all illegal border crossings into the European Union, creating a refugee and migration crisis. Greece was able to mobilise resources and its population, providing significant support to asylum seekers and refugees. It also adapted its domestic policies to create conditions for peaceful co-existence between refugees, asylum seekers and the Greek population (Section 1.1, Box 5.1).

Greece maintained its political commitment to development co-operation during the economic and migration crises. However, the crises have significantly impacted the country’s ODA. As the country responded to the migration crisis, Greece’s expenditure on in-donor refugee costs rose from around USD 16-17 million per year over 2012-14 (averaging 8% of total ODA) to USD 147 million in 2016, representing 40% of total ODA and 92% of bilateral ODA. These costs are supported by other ministries rather than DG Hellenic Aid (Section 3.2).

Greece engages in global processes, and addresses risks to peace and stability in its neighbourhood

Greece engages in global processes that affect sustainable development. It considers domestic application of the 2030 Agenda as an opportunity to adopt a fairer and more sustainable development approach, and will reflect the Sustainable Development Goals in its forthcoming national development strategy. The Greek Government strives to be a responsible broker in promoting peace and security, stability and religious tolerance in the Mediterranean region and the Middle East, and plays an active role in creating a safe marine environment in the Eastern Mediterranean (Section 1.1).

Greece faces several challenges

Funding of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is on hold as the Greek judicial authorities investigate allegations of misuse and mismanagement of previous grant funding. In addition, the economic and migration crises have impacted the level and content of Greece’s ODA, which focuses on maintaining multilateral commitments and providing support to refugees. As a result of DG Hellenic Aid’s limited operational activities, the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer review of Greece’s development co-operation was delayed by two years.

Greece lacks a modern legal framework and vision for development co-operation

The law framing Greece’s development co-operation has not been updated since being issued in 1999. Greece postponed plans to refine and approve draft legislation following the last DAC peer review, restricting its ability to further develop the policy framework and institutional structure for development co-operation (Section 2.1).

Greece lacks a clear vision for its ODA and has not adopted a medium-term strategy since 2006. An agreed vision and strategy would enhance inter-ministerial coherence and co-ordination, and enable DG Hellenic Aid to exercise its leadership role. Reactivating the Inter-Ministerial Committee for the Organization and Coordination of International Economic Relations would enable Greece to develop a whole-of-government vision for its development co-operation, as well as offer a vehicle for dialogue among stakeholders regarding Greece’s development policy and priorities (Sections 2.1, 4.1).

In response to the crises, Greece concentrated its ODA on multilateral assistance, in-donor refugee costs and scholarships. As Greece considers the future content of its development programme, it should take the opportunity to select a few themes where it has a comparative advantage. DG Hellenic Aid could draw on Greece’s experience with environmental protection and gender equality to develop guidance on mainstreaming cross-cutting issues in development co-operation (Sections 2.1, 2.2).

Recommendations:

(i) Greece should update the law governing its development co-operation.

(ii) Greece should reactivate the Inter-Ministerial Committee for the Organization and Coordination of International Economic Relations and charge it with preparing a whole-of-government vision and medium-term strategy for development co-operation.

Strategic engagement with stakeholders has stalled

Greece provides the bulk of its multilateral funding to European institutions. In addition, line ministries determine which multilateral institutions to support, and whether to provide voluntary contributions. As a result, limited multilateral funds are spread across over 27 organisations. A coherent and co-ordinated whole-of-government approach – defining priorities and the issues to be advocated – would add value to Greece’s ability to influence its multilateral partners and the global development agenda. In addition, working more closely with like-minded donors could enhance Greece’s ability to influence the governance and priorities of its key multilateral partners (Sections 2.3, 3.3).

Recommendation:

(iii) Greece should develop a whole-of-government framework as well as criteria for engaging with a few multilateral and regional institutions, focusing on agreed priorities.

Greece’s bilateral funding only covers in-donor refugee costs, and modest technical assistance and scholarships. Engagement with civil society organisations (CSOs), the private sector and academics is restricted to occasional events discussing topics related to the Sustainable Development Goals and opportunities for the private sector to participate in European Union development co-operation funding. Despite the lack of funding, DG Hellenic Aid could engage CSOs and other stakeholders in regular dialogue about Greece’s development co-operation policy, building relationships it could exploit in the future. DG Hellenic Aid could also draw valuable lessons from experience gained by CSOs and others during the response to the migration crisis. As the economy recovers and Greece considers stepping up its development co-operation, it needs to determine which delivery modalities and partnerships would best serve its intentions and policy (Sections 2.3, 5.1).

Recommendation:

(iv) DG Hellenic Aid should engage CSOs, the private sector and academics in regular dialogue about Greece’s development policy, to build a common understanding of – and support for – development co-operation.

Greece does not have a coherent approach to scholarships and has not assessed their development impact

Greece seeks to build capacity in partner countries through scholarships, offered in Greece by a range of ministries and institutions. However, it has no coherent and co-ordinated approach to scholarships, and partner countries do not participate in selecting candidates and fields of study. The Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs recently approved a strategy paper on scholarships. An evaluation would help Greece assess the impact of its scholarship programme on developing countries and support reforms aiming to enhance the development impact (Sections 3.2, 5.2).

Recommendation:

(v) Greece should evaluate its scholarship programme to determine its development impact, and use the findings to ensure it can achieve a strong and demonstrable development focus.

Greece needs to use results and evidence to guide its development co-operation

Recent peer reviews have highlighted the need for Greece to develop a results-based focus for its development co-operation, shifting DG Hellenic Aid’s approach to monitoring development activities from one emphasising inputs and financial controls, to one focused on outputs and outcomes. To this end, Greece needs a results-based management system that provides a clear understanding of the results achieved through its ODA investments (Section 6.1).

The lack of an evaluation system constrains Greece’s ability to learn from its experience in implementing bilateral and multilateral development co-operation initiatives. As recommended previously – and as Greece considers stepping up its development co-operation as the economy recovers – Greece would benefit from creating an evaluation unit, guided by a policy that clearly defines the role of evaluation, along with the unit’s functions, responsibilities and position in Greece’s institutional structure for development co-operation. Such a unit, endowed with a plan and budget enabling implementation, would also help the Greek Government meet its legal requirement to evaluate Greece’s development co-operation (Section 6.2).

A good understanding of the development co-operation results achieved by Greece, and lessons drawn from evaluations, would help DG Hellenic Aid to improve its decision-making and provide a basis for learning. It would also enable Greece to communicate better with the public, raising support for development and accounting for its use of taxpayer funds (Section 6.2).

Recommendation:

(vi) Greece should:

create a results-based management system documenting the results achieved by its ODA investments

develop an evaluation policy and establish an evaluation unit, supported by an annual evaluation plan and budget.

Greece’s systems for managing development co-operation are not fit for purpose

DG Hellenic Aid’s procurement, risk management and due-diligence mechanisms were not strong enough to prevent past misuse or mismanagement of grants. To avoid similar problems in the future, DG Hellenic Aid should draw on lessons from its recent experience and create the essential building blocks for a fit-for-purpose development co-operation system, including risk-management mechanisms informing control and due diligence (Section 4.2).

Recommendation:

(vii) To ensure a fit-for-purpose development co-operation system, DG Hellenic Aid should establish more efficient and effective:

procurement and contracting procedures

quality assurance

control and due-diligence mechanisms

risk management

public and parliamentary accountability and performance-reporting systems.

DG Hellenic Aid’s structure and staff composition do not enable it to adapt to the evolving needs of Greece’s development co-operation portfolio

DG Hellenic Aid’s core structure has remained unchanged since its creation in 1999. Six directorates, comprising just 24 staff members, result in a top-heavy organisation dominated by diplomats and rotating staff, with few development and humanitarian experts. Structuring DG Hellenic Aid around three key functions – policy, programming and corporate processes – would allow it to adapt to the evolving needs of Greece’s development co-operation portfolio (Section 4.3).

The current period of reduced activities offers an opportunity for DG Hellenic Aid to consider the expertise it will need, including an appropriate mix of development and humanitarian experts, to implement a larger development and humanitarian programme in the future. While resources are limited, DG Hellenic Aid could consider building staff capacity by accessing training delivered by other DAC members, as well as participating in DAC networks and European Commission training programmes (Section 4.3).

Recommendations:

(viii) Greece should restructure DG Hellenic Aid to enable it to fulfil its mandate and meet its policy, programming and corporate objectives.

(ix) DG Hellenic Aid should consider the expertise it will need, including an appropriate mix of development and humanitarian experts, to implement a larger development and humanitarian programme in the future.

DG Hellenic Aid is not building up its humanitarian capacity with the domestic crises

As a competent Ministry for Migration Policy has been established and concrete measures have been taken by the Greek authorities to meet the needs of refugees and asylum seekers, DG Hellenic Aid is not involved in the response to the domestic migration crisis apart from collecting data on in-donor refugee costs from relevant stakeholders. This could be regarded as a lost opportunity for building capacity and rebuilding its partnership with Greek civil society, which is very active in meeting migrants’ needs. While DG Hellenic Aid continues to participate in humanitarian policy fora, Greek humanitarian aid has stalled. DG Hellenic Aid should take the opportunity of the current low level of activity to determine its comparative advantage in humanitarian assistance, so that it can leverage its limited budget and contribute to this important sector in the future.

Recommendation:

(x) DG Hellenic Aid should determine its comparative advantage in a particular sector of humanitarian response, so that it can meaningfully add value to the global humanitarian community.

Ensuring continuity of services to refugees as greater use is made of national systems

In responding to the emergency humanitarian needs that arose as a consequence of the refugee and migration crisis, Greece adapted its legislation and government architecture to make the most of the financial and technical support provided by the Emergency Support Regulation (EU) 2016/369 through the European Union’s Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations. As the European Union’s support to Greece in managing asylum and migration transfers to the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, the use of national financial and administrative systems will increase. To manage the transition effectively and efficiently, and to reduce the risk of disruption in the provision of services to migrants and refugees by NGOs, Greece will have to act quickly to adapt its own administrative processes in order to speed up disbursements and ensure service continuity (Sections 1.1, 5.1).

Recommendation:

(xi) Greece should adapt its administrative processes to ensure service continuity and swift disbursement to the institutions and organisations involved in managing migration.

Summary of recommendations

List of all recommendations featured above:

(i) Greece should update the law governing its development co-operation.

(ii) Greece should reactivate the Inter-Ministerial Committee for the Organization and Coordination of International Economic Relations and charge it with preparing a whole-of-government vision and medium-term strategy for development co-operation.

(iii) Greece should develop a whole-of-government framework as well as criteria for engaging with a few multilateral and regional institutions, focusing on agreed priorities.

(iv) DG Hellenic Aid should engage CSOs, the private sector and academics in regular dialogue about Greece’s development policy, to build a common understanding of – and support for – development co-operation.

(v) Greece should evaluate its scholarship programme to determine its development impact, and use the findings to ensure it can achieve a strong and demonstrable development focus.

(vi) Greece should:

create a results-based management system documenting the results achieved by its ODA investments

develop an evaluation policy and establish an evaluation unit, supported by an annual evaluation plan and budget.

(vii) To ensure a fit-for-purpose development co-operation system, DG Hellenic Aid should establish more efficient and effective:

procurement and contracting procedures

quality assurance

control and due-diligence mechanisms

risk management

public and parliamentary accountability and performance-reporting systems.

(viii) Greece should restructure DG Hellenic Aid to enable it to fulfil its mandate and meet its policy, programming and corporate objectives.

(ix) DG Hellenic Aid should consider the expertise it will need, including an appropriate mix of development and humanitarian experts, to implement a larger development and humanitarian programme in the future.

(x) DG Hellenic Aid should determine its comparative advantage in a particular sector of humanitarian response, so that it can meaningfully add value to the global humanitarian community.

(xi) Greece should adapt its administrative processes to ensure service continuity and swift disbursement to the institutions and organisations involved in managing migration.

Secretariat’s Report

Chapter 1.

Greece’s global efforts to support sustainable development

This chapter examines Greece’s approach to global sustainable development, including its response to global challenges, action to ensure coherence between domestic policies and global sustainable development objectives, and efforts to raise awareness of global development issues at home. Greece engages in global processes to resolve challenges facing the Mediterranean, Southeast Europe and the Middle East, and advocates for a safe marine environment in the Eastern Mediterranean. Greece recognises the importance of policy coherence for sustainable development, but has not updated its legal framework to determine leadership, responsibility and accountability, or established a co-ordination mechanism for it. While Greece has intensified efforts to combat trafficking in human beings, greater efforts are needed to prevent corruption and illicit financial flows, and combat bribery. The solidarity shown to migrants provides a good foundation for public support for development co-operation. Engaging the public on the sustainable development goals could enhance global awareness among Greeks.

Efforts to support global sustainable development

Peer review indicator: The member plays an active role in contributing to global norms, frameworks and public goods that benefit developing countries

Greece engages in global processes to resolve the challenges – including peace and security, climate and the environment, culture and migration – facing the Mediterranean, Southeast Europe and the Middle East. Greece advocates for a safe marine environment in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Greek Government will reflect the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in its new national development strategy and intends to develop a national implementation plan for the SDGs in 2019.

Greece engages in global processes and advocates to resolve challenges in its neighbouring region

Through its membership in the European Union, Greece engages in global processes that affect sustainable development. It also advocates in its national capacity on issues of domestic concern and challenges facing its immediate neighbourhood – the Mediterranean, Southeast Europe and the Middle East – including peace and security, climate and the environment, culture and migration.

Greece actively participated in the processes leading to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In addition to associating itself with the positions of the European Union, Greece advocated for democracy and the rule of law, sustainable consumption and production, employment and decent work for all, and the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources.¹ In his input to the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit, Prime Minister Tsipras reflected on Greece’s recent experience of economic, security and refugee crises. He emphasised the importance of tackling debt, building and improving welfare states, and ensuring the ability of governments to manage taxation.²

Greece also contributed to developing the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction. It also ratified the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and, together with the European Union and its Member States, committed to reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 compared to 1990.3 Greece also pledged to implement 21 of the core commitments agreed at the World Humanitarian Summit.

Greece’s national development strategy will reflect the SDGs

The 2030 Agenda and the SDGs provide an opportunity for Greece to “transition to a new, fair and sustainable development path, ensuring that no one is left behind” (Government of Greece, 2018). Greece will reflect the SDGs in its forthcoming national development strategy, and the General Secretariat of the Government is formally mandated to lead the SDG integration process. An Inter-ministerial Co-ordination Network involving all ministries has been established, providing a vehicle for dialogue with civil society, employer and employee representative bodies, the private sector, and regional and local authorities.

Greece’s Voluntary National Review was presented to the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development in July 2018. It identifies eight national priorities,⁴ which will underlie the national implementation plan for the SDGs to be elaborated in 2019 (Government of Greece, 2018a).

Greece addresses risks to peace and stability in its neighbourhood

Greece strives to be a responsible broker in promoting peace and security, stability and religious tolerance in the Mediterranean region and the Middle East, and has recently initiated a number of processes to support this.

The inaugural International Conference on Religious and Cultural Pluralism and Peaceful Coexistence in the Middle East, organised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in October 2015, focused on the impact of human rights violations, terrorist acts and violent extremism on religious and cultural communities in protracted crises. By way of follow-up, the Centre for Religious Pluralism in the Middle East⁵ was established in Athens to deepen understanding of the challenges, and a second International Conference was held in October 2017.

Greece hosted the first Informal Ministerial Meeting of the Rhodes Security and Stability Conference in September 2016, which led to the Rhodes Informal Ministerial Conference for Security and Stability in May 2017 and June 2018.6

Greece has also entered into trilateral technical co-operation partnerships with Cyprus⁷ and Israel, as well as Cyprus and Egypt, centred on enhancing peace and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean.⁸

The partnership between Greece, Cyprus and Israel was initiated in 2016. It focuses on energy, tourism, research and technology, the environment, water management, migration and combating terrorism.⁹

The partnership between Greece, Cyprus and Egypt was initiated in 2017. It focuses on energy, migration, tourism, the environment, protection of cultural heritage, information and communication technology, agriculture and the diaspora.¹⁰

Greece seeks regional and global solutions to its migration crisis

While traditionally a country of emigration, Greece’s positioning on the south-eastern border of the European Union makes it an attractive entry point for people wishing to enter Europe irregularly. As a result, Greece’s efforts to manage migration flows and its border quickly became a European issue. Greece recognises that its domestic migration crisis requires regional and global solutions, and participates in several processes with the European Union to curb the flow of irregular migration to Europe through its borders. Efforts by the Hellenic Police and the Hellenic Coast Guard to protect Greece’s borders have been supplemented by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex). Between 2008 and 2014, irregular border crossings on the Eastern Mediterranean route to Europe averaged 45 404 per year, using Greece as the main point of entry. The number of illegal crossings increased dramatically in 2015, reaching 885 386. It subsequently dropped to 182 277 in 2016 and 42 305 in 2017,11 mainly owing to the effects of the European Union-Turkey statement (European Council, 2016). Greece also participates in policy fora such as the Global Forum on Migration and Development,¹² several European migration-related networks¹³ and the OECD Working Party on Migration. It has been actively involved in the recent intergovernmental negotiations on the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (United Nations, 2018).

Creating a safe marine environment in the Eastern Mediterranean

Greece is a maritime nation, with an extensive coastal area and significant involvement in maritime transportation. It has been a member of the International Maritime Organization since 1958 and has ratified its international conventions.¹⁴ Greece participates in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea¹⁵ and strives to protect the Mediterranean Sea, including through the Barcelona Convention¹⁶ (Box 1.1).

During its European Union Presidency in 2014, Greece sought to redefine and relaunch EU maritime policies, and was successful in progressing the drafting and adoption of the European Union’s Maritime Security Strategy.

Box 0.1. Protecting the Mediterranean Sea and its coastal zone

Greece plays an active role in protecting the Mediterranean marine environment.

It signed the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (“Barcelona Convention”) in February 1976, and ratified it in January 1979. It subsequently signed the Specially Protected Areas Protocol in April 1982 (ratifying it in January 1987) and the Specially Protected Areas Biodiversity Protocol in June 1995. The Secretariat of the Barcelona Convention has been based in Athens since 1981. Greece hosted the 19th Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention in February 2016, and presided over the Meeting of the Bureau of the Contracting Parties to the Convention in 2016 and 2017.

While trilateral technical co-operation partnerships with Cyprus and Israel (2016), and Cyprus and Egypt (2017), cover a wide range of topics, the marine environment is a key feature of both. Issues addressed include:

marine pollution, particularly resulting from oil and gas exploration

water pollution, water re-use and wastewater treatment, particularly waste water from olive-oil mills

underwater cultural heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean

combating coastal erosion and coastal-zone management

biological diversity and nature protection.

Policy coherence for sustainable development

Peer review indicator: Domestic policies support or do not harm developing countries

Greece recognises the importance of policy coherence for sustainable development, but has not updated its legal framework to determine leadership, responsibility and accountability, or established a co-ordination mechanism for it. The country has intensified efforts to combat trafficking in human beings, but could address several shortcomings in its approach. Greater efforts are needed to prevent corruption and illicit financial flows, and combat bribery.

Putting Greece’s commitment to policy coherence for sustainable development into practice

Greece recognises the importance of policy coherence for sustainable development. It endorsed the OECD Ministerial Declaration on Policy Coherence for Development in 2008 and the European Consensus on Development in 2017. However, Greece has not updated its legal framework to determine leadership, responsibility and accountability for policy coherence for sustainable development, leaving it without a clear commitment or co-ordination mechanism (CONCORD, 2015).

As a result, the Centre for Global Development ranks Greece poorly (25th out of 27 countries) on the 2017 Commitment to Development Index, which considers aid, finance, technology, environment, trade, security and migration.¹⁷ The country performs best on the environment, given its ratification of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the Fish Stocks Agreement, and its high petrol taxes. However, it performs poorly on aid (Chapter 3) and technology (Centre for Global Development, 2017).

The formal establishment of mechanisms to integrate the SDGs into Greece’s national development strategy (Section 1.1) shows what can be achieved with political interest and commitment. As it develops a national implementation plan for the SDGs in 2019, Greece has an opportunity to analyse areas where its domestic policies and regulatory frameworks have potentially negative impacts on developing countries, and to identify corrective actions.

Greece has intensified efforts to combat human trafficking

Greece’s location makes it highly vulnerable to the illegal movement and trafficking of people. The country included trafficking in human beings in its Criminal Code in 2002. It ratified a protocol protecting children in 2008 and a protocol on human trafficking in 2011.18

In recent years, Greece has intensified its efforts to combat trafficking. The Office of the National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings was established within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2013. It is supported by a permanent co-ordination mechanism and a permanent consultation forum that facilitates exchange between the National Rapporteur and specialised non-governmental organisations (NGOs). In 2014, Greece acceded to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.¹⁹ The National Referral Mechanism was formalised through a government decision in 2016.

In its first evaluation of Greece’s actions against trafficking in human beings, the Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) praised the positive steps taken by Greece, but also highlighted a number of shortcomings (GRETA, 2017).²⁰ The Group of Experts also noted the refugee crisis creates opportunities for traffickers and exploiters, especially in light of the presence of an estimated 3 150 unaccompanied children in Greece.²¹ As it considers further action, Greece might also consider the links between human trafficking, money laundering and terrorist financing, highlighted in a recent Financial Action Task Force (FATF) report (FATF-APG, 2018).

Lessons from the past must inform Greece’s efforts to prevent corruption and illicit financial flows, and combat bribery

Greece is a Party to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention;²² progress with its implementation is reviewed by the Working Group on Bribery of the OECD. A new law preventing money laundering and terrorist financing (Law 4557/2018) was enacted in July 2018.

A revised National Anti-Corruption Action Plan was adopted in 2015. The European Union and the OECD are providing technical support to the General Secretariat against Corruption, which is responsible for implementing the plan.²³ In July 2018 the General Secretariat revised the plan, outlining actions to be taken in the period 2018-2021 (General Secretariat Against Corruption, 2018).

The 4th Round Mutual Evaluation of Greece under its membership of the FATF is tentatively scheduled for completion in 2019. In concert with many OECD Development Assistance Committee members, Greece has considerable work to do to meet the Task Force’s recommendations, including on illicit financial flows (OECD, 2014).

Given the extent of the recent investigations by the Directorate General of International Development Cooperation-Hellenic Aid of the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DG Hellenic Aid) into past misuse of funds by NGOs, government entities, and regional and international organisations (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2018), it is clear that greater efforts will be needed to prevent corruption and combat bribery, including in development co-operation. As noted in the 2016 OECD Council Recommendation (OECD, 2016), these efforts should include assistance and advisory services, staff training and awareness, and a more robust approach to audit, and risk assessment and management (Chapter 4).

Global awareness

Peer review indicator: The member promotes whole-of-society contributions to sustainable development

Most Greeks support helping people in developing countries, but just one-third think it should be one of their government’s main priorities. The solidarity shown to migrants provides a good foundation for public support for development co-operation. Engaging the public on the SDGs could enhance global awareness and citizenship among Greeks.

Greeks recognise that development co-operation is important, but only one-third think it should be a top priority for their government

According to a Eurobarometer Special Survey undertaken in November-December 2016, 84% of surveyed Greeks believe helping people in developing countries is important. However, while 70% agree that tackling poverty in developing countries should be a top priority of the European Union, just 32% think it should be one of the main priorities of the Greek Government; 79% think that providing financial assistance to developing countries is an effective way to tackle poverty. While 52% of surveyed Greeks feel that individual engagement effectively helps to reduce poverty in developing countries, only 43% feel they can play a role as individuals. These results come close to the average for all EU countries (European Commission, 2017).²⁴

Broader efforts are needed to build public support

The Greek population has shown great solidarity towards migrants in a challenging social and economic context, which indicates a positive response to the influx of asylum seekers. However, broader efforts are needed to build public support for Greek development co-operation and humanitarian assistance.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its Directorate General of International Development Cooperation-Hellenic Aid (DG Hellenic Aid) provide information to the public about Greece’s development co-operation, mainly through the online publication of news items and the annual report submitted to the Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence and Foreign Affairs. In recent years, the report has focused on the amounts and destinations of aid expenditure. The 2017 report also included information about the meetings hosted, Greece’s participation in EU and international processes, and investigations into past misuse of funds. While this is important to ensure transparency, it is unlikely to elicit greater public support for official development assistance. Focusing on the results and impact of Greece’s limited development financing, and enlisting the participation of other stakeholders (such as academics and civil society) would enhance public understanding and support.

The SDGs present an opportunity to increase global awareness and citizenship

The General Secretariat of the Government has engaged in dialogue with a range of stakeholders on how Greece might implement the SDGs at home and abroad (Section 1.1). A series of multi-stakeholder events organised by government, civil society and other actors, as well as courses provided to officials through the National Centre of Public Administration and Local Government, have also contributed to Greece’s consideration of sustainable development.²⁵

While such efforts stimulate thinking among interested stakeholders, the real challenge for Greece – and for all DAC members – is reaching its ordinary citizens: only 39% of Greeks surveyed for the Eurobarometer had heard of – or read about – the SDGs. This figure is close to the EU average of 41% (European Commission, 2017) and in the 35-45% range identified by the OECD Development Communication Network (2017). DG Hellenic Aid might consider whether engaging the general public on the SDGs might contribute more broadly to enhancing global awareness and citizenship among the Greek population.

References

Government sources

General Secretariat against Corruption (2018), National Anti-corruption Action Plan (NACAP), General Secretariat against Corruption, Athens, http://www.gsac.gov.gr/attachments/article/234/National%20Anti-Corruption%20Action%20Plan%202018-2021.pdf

Government of Greece (2018a), Voluntary National Review on the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Greece, July 2018, General Secretariat of the Government, Office of Coordination, Institutional, International & European Affairs, Athens, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/19378Greece_VNR_Greece_2018_pdf_FINAL_140618.pdf.

Government of Greece (2018b), Law 4457/2018, Government of Greece, Athens.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2018), “Memorandum submitted by the Greek Authorities to the Development Assistance Committee/DAC of the OECD”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Athens.

Other sources

Center for Global Development (2017), “Commitment to Development Index 2017”, Center for Global Development, Washington DC, https://www.cgdev.org/cdi-2017/country/GRC.

CONCORD (2015), “Operationalising Policy Coherence for Development: A perspective of civil society on institutional systems for PCD in EU Member States”, Spotlight Report 2015, CONCORD, Brussels, https://library.concordeurope.org/record/1634/files/DEEEP-REPORT-2016-008.pdf.

European Commission (2017), “EU Citizens' views on development, cooperation and aid: Special Eurobarometer 455 Report”, European Commission, Brussels, https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/sp455-development-aid-final_en.pdf.

European Council (2016), “EU-Turkey Statement”, European Council, Brussels, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/eu-turkey-statement/.

FATF-APG (2018), Financial Flows from Human Trafficking, Financial Action Task Force, Paris, France, http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/content/images/Human-Trafficking-2018.pdf.

GRETA (2017), “Report concerning the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by Greece: First evaluation round”, GRETA(2017)27, Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, Council of Europe, https://rm.coe.int/greta-2017-27-fgr-gre-en/168075f2b6.

OECD Development Communication Network (2017), What People Know and Think About the Sustainable Development Goals, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/development/pgd/International_Survey_Data_DevCom_June%202017.pdf.

OECD (2016), 2016 OECD Recommendation of the Council for Development Co-operation Actors on Managing the Risk of Corruption, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/corruption/anti-bribery/Recommendation-Development-Cooperation-Corruption.pdf.

OECD (2014), Illicit Financial Flows from Developing Countries: Measuring OECD Responses, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/corruption/Illicit_Financial_Flows_from_Developing_Countries.pdf.

United Nations (2018), Global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration: Intergovernmentally negotiated and agreed outcome, 13 July 2018, United Nations, New-York, https://www.un.org/pga/72/wp-content/uploads/sites/51/2018/07/180713_Agreed-Outcome_Global-Compact-for-Migration.pdf

Notes

 1.  Note by Turkey: The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Turkey recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of the United Nations, Turkey shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”.

Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union: The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Turkey. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

 2.  For Greece’s statements to the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 intergovernmental negotiations, see: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/greece.

 3.  http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/7651555/greece.pdf.

 4.  Intended nationally determined contribution of the European Union and its Member States: www4.unfccc.int/ndcregistry/PublishedDocuments/Greece%20First/LV-03-06-EU%20INDC.pdf.

 5.  The eight priorities are: fostering a competitive, innovative and sustainable economic growth; promoting full employment and decent work for all; addressing poverty and social exclusion, and providing universal access to quality health care services; reducing social and regional inequalities and ensuring equal opportunities for all; providing high-quality and inclusive education; strengthening the protection and sustainable management of natural capital as a base for social prosperity and transition to a low-carbon economy; building effective, accountable and transparent institutions; and enhancing open, participatory, democratic processes and promoting partnerships.

 6.  http://www.crpme.gr/about.

 7.  The issues discussed include: border security, trafficking, counter-terrorism, non-proliferation, water and food security, energy and climate, interconnectivity, infrastructure and disaster management. For the communiqué of the first informal ministerial meeting, see: https://www.mfa.gr/en/current-affairs/top-story/joint-communique-rhodes-security-and-stability-conference-rhodes-0809-092016.html. For the communiqué of the second conference, see: https://www.mfa.gr/en/current-affairs/statements-speeches/joint-communique-2nd-rhodes-ministerial-conference-for-security-and-stability-living-and-working-together-in-peace-and-stability-rhodes-greece-22-23-may-2017.html. For the communiqué of the third conference, see: https://www.mfa.gr/images/docs/anakoinoseis/greek_chairmanship_communique.doc.pdf.

 8.  In addition to enhancing peace and stability in the region, these partnerships aim to “facilitate the sharing of experiences, knowledge and know-how in order to promote joint projects of mutual interest, find solutions to common concerns and promote interconnectivity and complementarity of actions” (Government of Greece, 2018).

 9.  Inaugural Cyprus-Israel-Greece Trilateral Summit Declaration: http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/2016/Pages/Trilateral-meeting-between-Israel-Greece-and-Cyprus-28-Jan-2016.aspx.

 10.  Nicosia Declaration of 21 November 2017: www.onisilos.gr/?p=13162.

 11.  Based on data from the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex): https://frontex.europa.eu/along-eu-borders/migratory-routes/eastern-mediterranean-route/.

 12.  https://gfmd.org/.

 13.  These include the European Migration Network (https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/authorities/greece_en); the European Integration Network (https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/network/european-integration-network-3); the European Social Fund Thematic Network on Migrants; and the Working Group on the Future of Integration.

 14.  Greece ratified the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974; the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973; and the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers: www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/Default.aspx. For details about the International Maritime Organization, see: www.imo.org/en/Pages/Default.aspx.

 15.  www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm.

 16.  For a copy of the Barcelona Convention, see: http://wedocs.unep.org/ bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/7096/Consolidated_BC95_Eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

 17.  https://www.cgdev.org/cdi-2017/country/GRC.

 18.  Greece ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1993, and its Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography in 2008. In 2011, it became a Party to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and its Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children.

 19.  https://rm.coe.int/168008371d.

 20.  Actions include: adopting a national action plan and a mechanism for monitoring its implementation; including servitude among the forms of exploitation resulting from human trafficking; enhancing efforts to discourage demand for the services of trafficked persons and raising awareness of the criminalisation of knowingly using the services of trafficked persons; ensuring that identification does not depend on the victim’s statement and co-operation in investigations or criminal proceedings and speed up granting of victim status; systematically informing presumed victims of the three-month (five for children) recovery and reflection period; ensuring that victims can benefit in practice from their right to obtain a renewable residence permit; and prioritise identification of gaps in the investigation procedure and the prosecution of trafficking cases (GRETA, 2017).

 21.  https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/download/63462.

 22.  In February 1999, Greece ratified the 1997 OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions: www.oecd.org/daf/anti-bribery/ConvCombatBribery_ENG.pdf.

 23.  www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/greece-oecd-anti-corruption.htm.

 24.  Across the European Union, 89% of surveyed citizens think helping people in developing countries is important, and 71% think that providing financial assistance to developing countries is an effective way to tackle poverty; 68% think tackling poverty in developing countries should be a main priority of the European Union, but only 51% agree it should be a priority of their national government. While 61% feel that individual engagement is effective in helping to reduce poverty in developing countries, only 43% feel they can play a role (European Commission, 2017).

 25.  Additional information about Greek efforts to enhance awareness and participation can be found in the Voluntary National Review report (Government of Greece, 2018a).

Chapter 2.

Greece’s policy vision and framework

This chapter assesses the extent to which clear political directives, policies and strategies shape Greece’s development co-operation and are in line with international commitments, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. While the 2030 Agenda and the European Consensus on Development frame Greece’s approach to development co-operation, it lacks a vision to guide its efforts. Once conditions improve, Greece should consider updating its legislation and introducing a strategy covering all actors in development co-operation, focusing on its comparative advantage in a few selected countries. Greece could draw on its domestic experience with environmental protection and gender equality to develop guidance on mainstreaming cross-cutting issues. Despite the lack of funding opportunities, the Directorate General of International Development Cooperation-Hellenic Aid could engage stakeholders in a regular dialogue about Greece’s development co-operation, and its approach to regional and global issues.

Framework

Peer review indicator: Clear policy vision aligned with the 2030 Agenda based on member's strengths

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the European Consensus on Development frame Greece’s approach to development co-operation. Nevertheless, Greece lacks a vision or statement of purpose to guide its efforts. Once conditions improve, Greece should consider updating its legislation and introducing a strategy covering all actors in development co-operation, focusing on its comparative advantage in a few selected countries.

A vision is needed to guide Greece’s future development co-operation

Greece seeks to assist partner countries’ efforts to achieve sustainable development, fight poverty and engage in international trade (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2018). The new European Consensus on Development endorsed by Greece in 2017 (European Commission, 2017), the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change frame Greece’s approach to development co-operation. Nevertheless, Greece does not possess a clear policy vision or top-level statement of purpose, and its development co-operation is not clearly positioned within the political and strategic context. Greece’s vision for development co-operation used to be formulated in a medium-term strategy. However, Greece has not adopted such a strategy since 2006 (OECD, 2008, 2013).

The legal framework (Law 2731/1999 and Presidential Decree 224/2000) establishes the Directorate General of International Development Cooperation-Hellenic Aid of the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DG Hellenic Aid); details the contractual requirements for personnel and service providers; and establishes Greece’s register for development non-governmental organisations (NGOs), determining their role in Greece’s development co-operation. It also creates the Inter-Ministerial Committee for the Organization and Coordination of International Economic Relations (EOSDOS), requires the establishment of inter-ministerial working groups to support the monitoring of development co-operation strategies, and directs that official development assistance (ODA) should follow OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) standards (Government of Greece, 1999, 2000).

The 2011 DAC peer review recommended that Greece refine the 2011 draft legislation and its proposed five-year programme to ensure planned reforms were specific, effective and followed international best practice (OECD, 2013). However, these documents were not progressed. Some stakeholders recognise the need to reform Greece’s legal framework. In the current situation – characterised by greater political priorities, a significant drop in ODA as a result of the economic crisis and the ongoing resolution of misuse of funds – such reforms seem unlikely. Once conditions improve, Greece should draw on DAC peer review recommendations, ensuring that the principles and policies outlined in a new law and five-year programme apply to all the actors involved in Greece’s development co-operation.

Greece’s development co-operation lacks a clear focus and priorities

The country’s legal framework does not specify the thematic and geographic scope of its development co-operation, and the absence of a draft programme or medium-term strategy means it lacks a clear focus and priorities.

Greek development co-operation has traditionally focused on poverty, hunger, health, education and culture, and peace and security. It has treated the environment and climate change, good governance and gender equality as cross-cutting issues (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2018). The current economic and refugee crises have meant that Greece concentrates its ODA on multilateral assistance, in-donor refugee costs and scholarships (Chapter 3).

As circumstances improve and Greece considers the future content of its development and humanitarian programme, it should take the opportunity to select a few themes where it has a comparative advantage, as recommended in previous DAC peer reviews.

Principles and guidance

Peer review indicator: Policy guidance sets out a clear and comprehensive approach, including to poverty and fragility

The Directorate General of International Development Cooperation-Hellenic Aid could draw on Greece’s domestic experience with environmental protection and gender equality to develop guidance on mainstreaming cross-cutting issues. Greece delivers its support to least-developed countries through European Union institutions.

Policy guidance on mainstreaming cross-cutting issues would enhance the impact of Greece’s ODA

Greece prioritises environmental protection, which is embedded in the Constitution and the dedicated Law 1650/1986 (Government of Greece, 1986). National priorities for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include protecting the environment and safeguarding the country’s unique ecological wealth (Government of Greece, 2018). At the international level, Greece has signed memoranda of understanding with several countries, to co-operate on topics including clean cities, marine protection, and environmental monitoring and warning systems.

Gender equality, and the empowerment of women and girls, are also Greek priorities (Government of Greece, 2018). The objectives of the National Action Plan on Gender Equality 2016-2020¹ include:

including a gender perspective in legislation and public policies for vulnerable social groups

providing holistic, multisectoral support of women who are victims of gender violence and/or multiple discriminations

integrating a gender perspective in healthcare policies

accelerating the equal participation of women in all areas of public and professional life, particularly in decision-making positions in the Greek Parliament and local/regional government.

Greece is also aware of the need to protect female migrants. In 2011, the General Secretariat for Gender Equality (GSGE) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) developed guidelines to protect refugee women and girls during first-reception and asylum procedures (GSGE, 2011). In 2016, several ministries and government entities adopted a common framework for action providing refugee women victims of violence and their children with safe shelter, counselling, employment and health services, cultural activities and access to education (GSGE, 2016). The volume of migrants, and the resulting strain on reception facilities, means that implementation has been challenging.² While Greece has yet to develop a national action plan for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, the experience gained integrating a gender perspective in its response to the refugee crisis could provide valuable lessons when it develops this plan.

Greece has endorsed the new European Consensus on Development, which highlights cross-cutting issues such as democracy, human rights, the rule of law, gender equality and climate change (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2018). However, DG Hellenic Aid has yet to develop policy guidance on mainstreaming cross-cutting issues in its development co-operation. Such guidance could enhance both the present and future impact of Greece’s development co-operation. It could draw on Greece’s domestic experience, engaging experts from relevant ministries to provide advice on mainstreaming sustainability and environmental protection in its support for refugees. It could also consider how scholarships might better contribute to gender equality and women’s empowerment.

Greece delivers its support for least-developed countries through EU institutions

While Greece seeks to reduce poverty and recognises the importance of leaving no one behind, it has not clarified how it will achieve this objective in its development co-operation. Greece currently addresses these issues primarily through multilateral co-operation. It delivers its support to least-developed countries through its assessed contributions to the EU development budget and the European Development Fund: in 2016, 12.8% of Greece’s total ODA was channelled through multilateral organisations to support least-developed countries (Annex B, Table B.7).

Greece considers that its multilateral partners have adopted a leave-no-one-behind approach, for example by focusing on income inequalities, women and youth, or endeavouring to promote an equitable multilateral aid system (OECD, forthcoming).

Basis for decision making

Peer review indicator: Policy provides sufficient guidance for decisions on channels and engagements

Greece has had limited engagement with civil society and private-sector partners in recent years. Despite the lack of funding opportunities, DG Hellenic Aid could engage stakeholders in a regular dialogue about Greece’s development co-operation, and its approach to regional and global issues.

Greece has limited engagement with civil society and private-sector partners

Greece’s development co-operation has primarily targeted its neighbouring region. Bilateral co-operation focused on the Balkans, and had begun to expand to the Mediterranean and the Caucasus prior to the economic crisis. Previous DAC peer reviews recommended formalising these relationships through country strategies. However, Greece has not pursued this, as its bilateral ODA is limited to scholarships and in-donor refugee costs. An integrated and coherent approach to offering scholarships might enhance their developmental impact (Chapter 5).

Policy engagement with stakeholders outside of government – NGOs, the private sector and academics – has been limited to occasional events discussing SDG-related topics.

As bilateral funding has dropped significantly, and questions regarding misuse of funds by some NGOs in the 2000s remain unresolved, no calls for proposals have been issued since 2011. DG Hellenic Aid has not developed a policy outlining criteria for selecting NGOs to partner with, as recommended in the last peer review (OECD, 2013).

Despite the lack of funding, DG Hellenic Aid could engage other stakeholders in regular dialogue about Greece’s development co-operation policy. This would allow the country to build potentially beneficial relationships for the future and benefit from the expertise accumulated by NGOs through their engagement in the refugee crisis.

Greece might consider a co-ordinated approach to engaging with multilateral institutions

Greece’s support for multilateral and regional institutions is a significant component of its development co-operation. In 2016, Greece’s gross multilateral ODA comprised 57% of total ODA – twice the 27% DAC average. Greece currently contributes to over 27 regional institutions, development banks, UN agencies and multilateral organisations. It focuses first and foremost on meeting its assessed contributions and annual subscriptions to multilateral and regional institutions; beyond that, each ministry determines whether to provide voluntary contributions. Given the limited multilateral co-operation budget (the bulk of available funding goes to European institutions), Greece has had little opportunity to rationalise aid channelled through multilateral institutions, as recommended in the 2011 peer review (OECD, 2013) (Chapter 3). An assessment of the effectiveness and added value of Greece’s multilateral contributions, which commenced in June 2018, is a positive first step.

Despite its limited funding, Greece could enhance its ability to influence its multilateral partners and in turn the global development agenda in two ways. First, it could establish a coherent and co-ordinated whole-of-government approach to engaging with multilateral institutions, based on predefined priorities for multilateral engagement and pre-agreed issues to be advocated within each institution. Second, it could work more closely with like-minded donors to influence the governance of its key multilateral partners. In this regard, Greece might draw on the experience of other DAC members and consider whether it might benefit from future membership in the Multilateral Organization Performance Assessment Network (MOPAN).³

References

Government sources

Government of Greece (2018), Voluntary National Review on the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Greece, July 2018, General Secretariat of the Government, Office of Coordination, Institutional, International & European Affairs, Government of Greece, Athens, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/19378Greece_VNR_Greece_2018_pdf_FINAL_140618.pdf .

Government of Greece (2000), Presidential Decree 224/2000, Government of Greece, Athens

Government of Greece (1999), Law 2731/1999, Government of Greece, Athens.

Government of Greece (1986), Law 1650/1986, Government of Greece, Athens.

GSGE (2016), “Cooperation protocol on the adaptation of a common framework of procedures for refugee women, victims of violence”, General Secretariat for Gender Equality, Ministry of Interior, Athens, www.isotita.gr/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Protocol-on-Cooperation-for-Refugee-Women.pdf .

GSGE (2011), “Guidelines for Protecting Women and Girls during first entry and asylum procedures in Greece”, General Secretariat for Gender Equality, Ministry of Interior, Athens, www.isotita.gr/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Asylum_Guidelines_en_nov2011.pdf .

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2018), “Memorandum submitted by the Greek Authorities to the Development Assistance Committee/DAC of the OECD”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Athens.

Other sources

European Commission (2017), “The New European Consensus on Development: ‘Our World, Our Dignity, Our Future’: Joint Statement by the Council, and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission”, 7 June 2017, European Commission, Brussels, https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/european-consensus-on-development-final-20170626_en.pdf.

Human Rights Watch (2018), “Misery for Women and Girls in Greece’s Island Paradise: Government Downplays Sexual Violence Risks in Migrant Hotspots”, Human Rights Watch, New York, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/14/misery-women-and-girls-greeces-island-paradise.

OECD (forthcoming), Development Cooperation Report 2018: Joining Forces to Leave No One Behind, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2013), OECD Development Assistance Peer Reviews: Greece 2011, OECD Development Assistance Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264117112-en.

OECD (2008), "DAC Peer Review of Greece", OECD Journal on Development, Vol. 7/4, OECD, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/journal_dev-v7-art40-en.

UNHCR (2018a), “Refugee women and children face heightened risk of sexual violence amid tensions and overcrowding at reception facilities on Greek islands”, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Geneva, http://www.unhcr.org/news/briefing/2018/2/5a7d67c4b/refugee-women-children-face-heightened-risk-sexual-violence-amid-tensions.html.

UNHCR (2018b), “Refugee women and children face heightened risk of sexual violence amid tensions and overcrowding at reception facilities on Greek islands”, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Geneva, http://www.unhcr.org/news/latest/2018/2/5a7d89374/women-report-sexual-abuse-fears-greek-reception-centres.html.

Notes

 1.  The plan was prepared by the GSGE: www.isotita.gr/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Greece-National-Action-Plan-on-Gender-Equality-2016-2020.pdf.

 2.  Overcrowding in island hotspots affects the implementation of the co-operation protocol. Due to insufficient capacity, many women remain in unsafe shelters, and strained staff miss identifying and helping victims of sexual and gender-based violence. Transfer to the mainland provides relief, but more needs to be done (UNHCR, 2018a, 2018b; Human Rights Watch, 2018).

 3.  MOPAN (www.mopanonline.org/) was launched in 2002 as a network of like-minded donor countries whose goal is to monitor the performance of multilateral development organisations at the country level. All members have a common interest in knowing more about the effectiveness of multilateral organisations through joint assessments, information exchange, and expertise in monitoring and evaluation.

Chapter 3.

Greece’s financing for development

This chapter considers how international and national commitments drive the volume and allocations of Greece’s official development assistance (ODA). It also explores Greece’s other financing efforts in support of the 2030 Agenda. Greece has maintained its commitment to development co-operation during the economic and migration crises. The economic recession saw Greece’s ODA drop to USD 190 million in 2013, representing just 0.10% of gross national income. Since the ODA budget was cut in 2009, the main components of Greece’s bilateral aid have been in-donor refugee costs and scholarships. In the wake of the economic crisis, Greece has adopted a pragmatic approach to its multilateral assistance. The country seeks to meet its commitments to EU institutions and other multilateral organisations. Although Greece recognises the private sector’s potential contribution to sustainable development, it has not set a clear approach to attracting finance beyond ODA.

Overall volume of official development assistance

Peer review indicator: The member makes every effort to meet domestic and international ODA targets

Greece has maintained its commitment to development co-operation during the economic and migration crises. The economic recession saw Greece’s ODA drop to USD 190 million in 2013, representing just 0.10% of gross national income. This is the lowest amount of ODA provided by Greece since joining the DAC in 1999. Greece’s statistical reporting conforms to OECD DAC guidelines, although it has recently reported no expenditure on other official flows and negative private flows.

Greece has increased its ODA in response to the refugee crisis

As a member of the European Union (EU), Greece has agreed to reach 0.7% of official development assistance (ODA) as a share of gross national income (GNI) by 2030. However, the government has not clearly stated the target ODA level it wants to achieve or how it will do so. The Ministry of Finance has signalled its intention to reinstate the country’s efforts to reach the target of 0.7% once the economy has recovered.

The 2018 state budget is the last submitted under Greece’s macroeconomic adjustment programme. The OECD Economic Survey of Greece projects that gross domestic product growth will rise to 2.3% in 2019 as the economy recovers, the strongest increase since the onset of the economic crisis (OECD, 2018a). This positive momentum may offer Greece the space to increase its expenditure on development co-operation.

Greek ODA flows have traditionally been volatile, and ODA has fluctuated considerably since the 2011 peer review (OECD, 2013) (Figure 3.1). As the economic recession intensified, Greece instituted significant budget cuts. Its ODA dropped from USD 525 million (0.21% of GNI) in 2008 to a low of USD 191 million (0.10%) in 2013 (2016 constant prices). Greece’s ODA subsequently recovered as the country responded to the migration crisis and the need to support refugees. Despite these crises, Greece has maintained its commitment to development co-operation.

In 2016, Greece provided USD 368.5 million in net ODA, representing 0.19% of GNI and a 56.4% increase in real terms since 2015. Preliminary figures indicate that Greece’s ODA fell to USD 310 million in constant prices in 2017 (0.16% of GNI), partly owing to lower expenditure on in-donor refugee costs. Greece ranks 25th among the 30 DAC members in terms of ODA as a percentage of GNI (ODA/GNI), and 26th in ODA volume (OECD, 2018b).

Figure 3.1. Trends in Greece’s net ODA, 1996-2017

Source: OECD, 2017, “Creditor Reporting System” (database), https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=crs1

Reporting conforms to OECD rules, but there is room for improvement

Greece reports all of its ODA expenditure through the DAC statistics and is one of ten OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members rated “fair”. Areas for improvement include its descriptive fields, ODA eligibility and reported channel names (OECD, 2018c). The country has not responded to the DAC forward-spending surveys. In addition, it has reported no expenditure on other official flows since 2008 and private flows since 2014.

In the spirit of reaching common ground, Greece was an active participant in the DAC Temporary Working Group on Refugees and Migrants. It adopted the Clarifications to the Statistical Reporting Directives on in-donor refugee costs issued in 2017 (OECD, 2017), although it is working on fully adapting its methods and data collection.

Bilateral ODA allocations

Peer review indicator: Aid is allocated according to the statement of intent and international commitments

Since the ODA budget was cut in 2009, the main components of Greece’s bilateral aid have been in-donor refugee costs and scholarships. Greece is most likely to be under-reporting its expenditure on refugees. Greece’s share of bilateral ODA targeted towards gender and the environment is low by DAC standards.

Bilateral ODA mostly targets in-donor refugee costs

Albania, Greece’s neighbour in the Western Balkans, has traditionally been the largest recipient of Greece’s assistance. In 2009, Greece spent 52% of its bilateral ODA in the Balkans, principally in the form of scholarships and imputed student costs to build capacity in partner countries. Several ministries and foundations offer scholarships. However, until recently, Greece had not taken action to assess the impact of its scholarship programme.

As Balkan countries prepared to accede to the European Union, Greece’s focus began to shift to Middle Eastern countries. Thus, although bilateral ODA increased in 2015 because of the refugee crisis, only 8.51% of the total went to the Balkans.

Prior to the onset of the economic crisis, 7.8% of bilateral ODA over 2002-06 was channelled to and through NGOs. In 2007, mounting questions regarding several projects funded by the Directorate General of International Development Cooperation-Hellenic Aid of the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DG Hellenic Aid) led to stopping the calls for proposals, effectively severing ties with NGOs (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2018).

As a result of budget cuts stemming from the economic crisis, Greece’s bilateral aid dropped from 44.4% of total ODA in 2008 to 18.3% in 2013. Disbursements were limited to scholarships and imputed student costs, as well as in-donor refugee costs (around USD 16-17 million per year). In 2015, owing to an increase in the number of asylum seekers, Greece spent an additional USD 38 million on in-donor refugee costs, and bilateral ODA rose to 30.1% of total ODA. In 2016, bilateral ODA grew by a further USD 88 million, spurred by the significant increase in the number of refugees, whose costs are managed by line ministries rather than DG Hellenic Aid. There were no bilateral disbursements through civil society organisations, the private sector or partner countries.

In 2016, Greece’s bilateral aid amounted to USD 159.1 million – 43.19% of total ODA. Of this amount, USD 146.6 million covered in-donor refugee costs (92.15% of bilateral ODA and 40% of total ODA); USD 1.78 million (1.1% of bilateral ODA) paid for scholarships; and USD 8 million (5% of bilateral ODA) – a multi-bi contribution – was disbursed through EU institutions to the EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey for the Syrian refugees (Annex B).

While expenditure on in-donor refugee costs has significantly increased since 2014, Greek stakeholders note that substantial under-reporting is likely, given the difficulty of determining the cost of providing services refugees can freely access (e.g. health, education and welfare services, and services paid for by municipalities – such as security, first aid on the islands, and provision of shelter). In 2016, the cost may have exceeded the reported USD 146.6 million.

Greece’s expenditure on cross-cutting issues is low by DAC standards

In 2016, USD 2.9 million of Greece’s bilateral ODA had gender equality and women’s empowerment as a principal or significant objective, representing 25% of Greece’s bilateral allocable ODA, compared to the DAC country average of 36%.

USD 1 million of bilateral ODA supported the environment in 2016, representing 8.5% of Greek bilateral aid, compared to the 2016 DAC country average of 28%; the same percentage was spent on climate change mitigation and adaptation, compared to the DAC country average of 24%.

Multilateral ODA allocations

Peer review indicator: The member uses the multilateral aid channel effectively

In the wake of the economic crisis, Greece has adopted a pragmatic approach to its multilateral assistance. The country seeks to meet its commitments – primarily assessed contributions – to EU institutions and other multilateral organisations. Relevant ministries determine which institution to support, and whether voluntary contributions are warranted.

Multilateral co-operation forms a large share of Greece’s ODA

Greece spends a large amount of ODA on multilateral assistance. In 2016, it channelled USD 217.4 million (59% of its ODA) to and through multilaterals, compared with USD 166.9 million in 2015. In 2016, core contributions to EU institutions amounted to USD 191 million, including USD 61.42 million allocated to the European Development Fund (EDF); USD 13 million to United Nations institutions; and USD 5 million to other international organisations or institutions (Annex B).

While allocation of the bilateral co-operation budget is normally managed by Hellenic Aid, allocations to multilateral organisations are made autonomously by relevant line ministries. Each ministry includes the forecasted ODA disbursements in its budget; it determines which institutions to support, and whether to provide voluntary contributions. This approach complicates the visibility, planning and monitoring of multilateral ODA. Moreover, no multi-year planning is in place.

Between 2008 and 2016, the bulk of Greece’s multilateral disbursements was directed to the European Union and the EDF. In 2008, 61% of multilateral ODA was allocated to EU institutions, whereas the share of allocations to the European Union did not drop below 90% of total multilateral aid over 2008-16 (Figure 3.2). Greece’s allocation to other multilaterals organisations, including regional development banks and international and regional organisations, represented a significant share of its multilateral aid until 2008, but has since decreased significantly. The amount disbursed to regional banks, for example, dropped from USD 33.07 million in 2008 to USD 0.56 million in 2012.

Figure 3.2. ODA composition in 2008-16, and bilateral and multilateral ODA in Greece

Source: OECD, 2017, “Creditor Reporting System” (database), https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=crs1

Financing for development

Peer review indicator: The member promotes and catalyses development finance additional to ODA

Although Greece recognises the private sector’s potential contribution to sustainable development, it has not set a clear approach to attracting finance beyond ODA. DG Hellenic Aid could consider how to leverage the comparative advantage of Greece’s private sector to support sustainable development in developing countries.

Greece should explore catalysing development finance in addition to ODA

DG Hellenic Aid recognises the potential role of the private sector in supporting sustainable development. However, Greece does not currently use ODA as a catalyst to leverage additional sources of development finance, such as private-sector investment, nor does it have the resources to support domestic-resource mobilisation in partner countries. DG Hellenic Aid’s engagement with the private sector is largely limited to one-off events.

DG Hellenic Aid could consider the comparative advantage of Greece’s private sector and engage in a strategic conversation with private-sector representatives about using this comparative advantage to support sustainable development in developing countries. For example, Greece might envisage leveraging its significant maritime expertise and its strong role in global shipping.

References

Government sources

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2018), “Memorandum submitted by the Greek Authorities to the Development Assistance Committee/DAC of the OECD”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Athens.

Other sources

OECD (2018a), OECD Economic Surveys: Greece 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-grc-2018-en.

OECD (2018b), “OECD Development aid stable in 2017 with more sent to poorest countries”, OECD press release, http://www.oecd.org/development/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-data/ODA-2017-complete-data-tables.pdf.

OECD (2018c), “DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics, DAC Statistical Reporting Issues in 2017 on flows in 2016”, OECD, Paris, DCD/DAC/STAT(2018)33.

OECD (2017), ‘’Clarifications to the Statistical Reporting Directives On In-Donor Refugee Costs , DAC Temporary Working Group (TWG) on Refugees and Migration, OECD, Paris, DCD/DAC(2017)35/FINAL

OECD (2013), OECD Development Assistance Peer Reviews: Greece 2011, OECD Development Assistance Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264117112-en

Chapter 4.

Greece’s structure and systems

This chapter reviews Greece’s organisational structures and management systems for its development co-operation and the extent to which they are fit for purpose, with appropriate capabilities to deliver on its development objectives. As the aid programme recovers, the Directorate General of International Development Cooperation-Hellenic Aid needs to implement its leadership role, develop a strategy for Greece’s development co-operation and convene the inter-ministerial co-ordinating committee. Greece needs to establish fit-for-purpose systems focusing on internal controls, risk management and due diligence. As Greece expands its bilateral programme, it will need such systems to deliver efficient and effective aid, and avoid grant mismanagement, as has occurred in the past. DG Hellenic Aid’s current structure is not appropriate for delivering its current activities. It needs to consider the expertise needed to implement a larger development and humanitarian programme, including an adequate mix of development and humanitarian experts.

Authority, mandate and co-ordination

Peer review indicator: Responsibility for development co-operation is clearly defined, with the capacity to make a positive contribution to sustainable development outcomes

Greece’s legal framework gives the Directorate General of International Development Cooperation-Hellenic Aid of the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DG Hellenic Aid) a leading role in development co-operation and creates a co-ordinating committee. However, as the aid programme recovers, DG Hellenic Aid needs to implement its leadership role, develop a strategy for Greece’s development co-operation and convene the inter-ministerial co-ordinating committee.

DG Hellenic Aid struggles to implement its leadership role

By law, DG Hellenic Aid is the authority responsible for the development co-operation of Greece. Presidential Decree 224/2000 creates it as an integral yet independent part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Government of Greece, 2000). The decree gives DG Hellenic Aid the responsibility for planning and formulating Greece’s development co-operation strategy, as well as supervising, co-ordinating, monitoring and evaluating humanitarian and development projects. In reality, DG Hellenic Aid lacks the authority and capacity to implement its mandate, and the legal framework does not empower it to influence other ministries’ annual official development assistance (ODA) planning. Line ministries are not required to implement shared policies and objectives; they only need to report their ODA to DG Hellenic Aid at the end of the year. DG Hellenic Aid could exert its leadership by complying with its legal obligation and formulating a strategy, to be agreed with all ministries involved in Greece’s development co-operation (Chapter 2).

Greece’s development co-operation needs inter-ministerial co-ordination

Inter-ministerial co-ordination is a long-standing challenge in Greece. An OECD review of the Greek administration noted that it “generally operates in silos”: fragmentation and overlaps among structures and tasks discourage information sharing and co-operation – which is usually done ad hoc, based on personal knowledge and initiative (OECD, 2011).

Recent efforts to co-ordinate Greece’s approach to some key issues provide positive examples for co-ordinating development co-operation: the newly created Ministry of Migration Policy has established a platform co-ordinating the work of all ministries and public entities involved in the response to the refugee crisis (Chapter 5), and the General Secretariat of the Government has set up an Inter-ministerial Coordination Network to integrate the Sustainable Development Goals into Greece’s national development strategy (Chapter 1).

As noted in the 2011 OECD Development Committee (DAC) peer review, enhancing the role of the Inter-Ministerial Committee for the Organization and Coordination of International Economic Relations (EOSDOS), established by Law 2731/1999, is crucial to ensuring co-ordinated development co-operation (OECD, 2013; Government of Greece, 1999). However, the draft law that would have achieved this was not approved, and the committee has not been convened since 2011. Nevertheless, there is much for the committee to do, for example: determine the vision and focus of Greece’s development co-operation; engage in dialogue with stakeholders regarding Greece’s development policy; agree priorities for multilateral engagement; and agree an approach to scholarships to achieve development impact (Chapters 2 and 5). As foreseen by Presidential Decree 224/2000, Greece should ensure that all ministries and agencies involved in development co-operation are included in co-ordination efforts (Government of Greece, 2000).

Systems

Peer review indicator: The member has clear and relevant processes and mechanisms in place

Greece needs to establish fit-for-purpose systems focusing on internal controls, risk management and due diligence. As Greece expands its bilateral programme, it will need such systems to deliver efficient and effective aid, and avoid grant mismanagement, as has occurred in the past.

DG Hellenic Aid needs systems that are fit for purpose

The 2011 DAC peer review recognised Greece’s intention to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its aid delivery (OECD, 2013). However, the planned changes have not been implemented. Given the narrow focus of Greece’s current development co-operation, there has been little incentive or room for DG Hellenic Aid to modernise its structures and procedures.

DG Hellenic Aid acknowledges that its procurement, risk management and due-diligence mechanisms were not strong enough to prevent past misuse or mismanagement of grants. Ex-ante audit mechanisms – which were subsequently abolished – were weak, and project monitoring and follow-up was inadequate. DG Hellenic Aid should be commended for its dedication to reviewing instances of misuse by NGOs, and identifying and recovering unexpended funds from bilateral, regional and international institutions. To avoid similar problems in the future, it should draw on lessons from the review of past grants and the 2016 report of the General Inspector of Public Administration into misuse by public entities (General Inspector of Public Administration (2016).

Lessons from this and other reviews indicate that Greece needs to create the essential building blocks for a fit-for-purpose development co-operation system, including:

clear and transparent processes and procedures for decision making on programming, policies and partnerships

a system that ensures high-quality development co-operation, including in relation to cross-cutting issues

a system that provides adequate and timely information on development co-operation programmes, and ensures accountability for results, in line with Greece’s commitment to transparency

procurement, contracting and agreement mechanisms that help implement policies and commitments fairly and efficiently

a system that facilitates assessing and adapting to strategic, reputational, programming and security risks, and informs control and due-diligence mechanisms, including related to corruption

independent and effective audit processes

incentives to innovate and adapt to changes in the development landscape.

Capabilities throughout the system

Peer review indicator: The member has appropriate skills and knowledge to manage and deliver its development co-operation, and ensures these are located in the right places

DG Hellenic Aid’s current structure is not appropriate for delivering its current activities. It needs to consider the expertise needed to implement a larger development and humanitarian programme, including an adequate mix of development and humanitarian experts. It could build staff capacity by participating in DAC networks and European Commission training programmes.

DG Hellenic Aid’s structure and staffing are not appropriate for delivering its assigned activities

DG Hellenic Aid recognises that it needs to adapt its structure to ensure better delivery of its development co-operation activities. Six directorates – as required by Presidential Decree 224/2000 (Government of Greece, 2000) – comprising just 24 staff result in a top-heavy organisation (6.3.Annex C). In 2017, a statistical office was established in DG Hellenic Aid and in 2018 the office was staffed by an economist with statistical capacity. Diplomats and rotating staff make up the majority of DG Hellenic Aid staff, with few development and humanitarian experts.

The 2011 DAC peer review recommended structuring DG Hellenic Aid around three key functions: policy, programming and corporate processes (OECD, 2013). Such a structure would allow DG Hellenic Aid to adapt more readily to changes in its development co-operation portfolio.

Despite a significant reduction in its ODA, DG Hellenic Aid has maintained a cadre of dedicated staff. The current period of reduced operations offers an opportunity to consider the competences DG Hellenic Aid will need – including an appropriate mix of development and humanitarian experts – to implement a larger development and humanitarian programme in the future.

Past DAC peer reviews encouraged Greece to develop a strategic approach to human resources, including recruitment, training and career development (OECD, 2013, 2008). DG Hellenic Aid implements annual staff appraisals and encourages ad-hoc feedback. Setting clear individual objectives to help evaluate staff performance could improve this system.

Participation in DAC policy networks could help build staff capacity

DG Hellenic Aid faces challenges in recruiting, training and retaining staff. A number of DG Hellenic Aid staff have developed expertise in development co-operation during their placements in Brussels at the Permanent Representation of Greece to the European Union. However, this is not a regular occurrence, and DG Hellenic Aid relies mostly on on-the-job training. The lack of current operations limits staff opportunities to learn on the job. Moreover, the high staff turnover – few stay more than two years – limits the effectiveness of such an informal training system, as institutional memory is rapidly lost. DG Hellenic Aid could consider building staff capacity by accessing training delivered by other DAC members, as well as participating in European Commission training programmes. The recent appointment of official focal points will facilitate learning from the DAC networks on development evaluation, governance, and environment and development.

References

Government sources

Government of Greece (2000), Presidential Decree 224/2000, Government of Greece, Athens.

Government of Greece (1999), Law 2731/1999, Government of Greece, Athens.

General Inspector of Public Administration (2016), Annual Report 2016, Athens, https://www.gedd.gr/article_data/Linked_files/199/GEDD-EE-2016.pdf.

Other sources

OECD (2013), OECD Development Assistance Peer Reviews: Greece 2011, OECD Development Assistance Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264117112-en.

OECD (2011), Greece: Review of the Central Administration, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264102880-en.

OECD (2008), "DAC Peer Review of Greece", OECD Journal on Development, Vol. 7/4, https://doi.org/10.1787/journal_dev-v7-art40-en

Chapter 5.

Greece’s delivery modalities and partnerships

This chapter reviews Greece’s approach to delivering in partner countries and through partnerships to determine whether this is in line with the principles of effective development co-operation. The Directorate General of International Development Cooperation-Hellenic Aid has not maintained its network of partners during the recent period of reduced activities. However, civil society organisations (CSOs), academics and the private sector are keen to engage in a dialogue on the future direction of Greece’s development co-operation, and the partnerships that could deliver this. Once Greece resumes country-level engagement, it should develop country strategies in close consultation with its key partner countries. The development impact of Greece’s scholarship programme needs to be determined.

Partnering

Peer review indicator: The member has effective partnerships in support of development goals with a range of actors, recognising the different and complementary roles of all actors

The Directorate General of International Development Cooperation-Hellenic Aid of the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not maintained its network of partners during the recent period of reduced activities. However, civil society organisations (CSOs), academics and the private sector are keen to engage in a dialogue on the future direction of Greece’s development co-operation, and the partnerships that could deliver this. Through its response to the migration crisis, Greece has gained valuable experience on joint approaches, which could serve as a model for development co-operation.

Results-oriented partnerships can help deliver future development co-operation

The current context has had a significant impact on the Greek Government’s ability to partner with a range of actors in its development co-operation. Country-level engagements have halted; aid is delivered through scholarships and in-donor refugee costs, and contributions to multilateral organisations. As the economy recovers and Greece considers stepping up its development co-operation, it needs to determine which delivery modalities and partnerships might best serve its intentions and policy. To establish efficient and effective partnerships, Greece should consider whether:

the partnerships are relevant to global, regional or country-level sustainable development needs, recognising links with other complementary policies, initiatives and processes

programming and budgeting are predictable and flexible, and transaction costs are minimised¹

funding is transparent and delivers value for money for the taxpayer, and monitoring focuses on results

joint approaches could suit the intended objective.

In the past, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were DG Hellenic Aid’s primary partner when implementing its aid programme. Past OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer reviews recommended that instead of relying on general calls for proposals, Greece should favour results-oriented partnerships with trusted NGOs, embedded in an approach based on country strategies (OECD, 2013a, 2006).² The recent domestic experiences of NGOs provide a valuable basis for building such results-oriented partnerships: with fewer opportunities to work abroad, many development NGOs started supporting the response to the refugee crisis or helping vulnerable Greeks weather the economic crisis.

Greece collaborated flexibly with partners in responding to the migration crisis

Greece has made good use of European Union instruments and policies to respond to the migration crisis. This experience can provide valuable insights on joint approaches. Greece’s interaction with the European Commission’s Structural Reform Support Service and Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (DG ECHO) has allowed it to build progressively a stable system for managing migration, both in the island hotspots and on the mainland.

Greece’s geographic location makes it a key entry point to the European Union; hence, the recent migration crisis hit the country hard. Greece’s first priority was to save and protect lives. It engaged its coastguard, police and army to manage shelter, food and healthcare, complemented significantly by CSOs and the Greek population’s solidarity. The Greek response is guided by the vision of creating safe pathways for migration and strengthening solidarity with host countries. Greece has managed to change its legislation to provide the appropriate tools for addressing the migration crisis. For example, it grants asylum seekers access to basic services and education, ensuring good prospects for successful integration in Greek society (Box 5.1).

However, managing the inflow of migrants remains a challenge. At the beginning of the migration crisis, the European Union’s Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (DG ECHO) quickly helped Greece cope with the cost by directly funding humanitarian partners, including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which co-manages the main refugee reception programme with the Greek Government (UNHCR, 2018). As the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs (DG HOME) gradually takes over the European Union’s support to Greece in managing migration, the use of national financial and administrative systems will increase. This transition period represents a major risk to the provision of services to refugees by Greek NGOs and municipalities, which are managing the aid to asylum seekers, and may hamper the effectiveness and efficiency of Greece’s response. To manage this transition effectively, Greece will have to adjust its administrative processes swiftly, notably to speed up disbursements and ensure service continuity.

Box 5.1. Greece quickly developed mechanisms for initial reception and integration of refugees

In 2015, 84% of all illegal border crossings into the European Union took place in Greece (Frontex, 2015). During the first weeks of the emergency phase, Greece relied on its own security apparatus, complemented by the efforts of local municipalities, CSOs and the Greek population. The magnitude of the influx rapidly exceeded Greece’s already stretched capacity to manage the security, legal and humanitarian aspects of the migration flow.

As most migrants arriving in Greece did not apply for asylum there, the Greek Government emphasised the European dimension of the crisis; it asked for European solidarity, and the deployment of existing tools and emergency funds (Migration Policy Centre, 2015). As a result, over USD 1.44 billion in EU funding has been allocated to Greece to support migration management since the beginning of 2015, including USD 435.9 million in emergency assistance and over USD 488 million to cover projects under the EU Emergency Support Instrument (European Commission, 2018). In 2016, the Greek Government created a dedicated Ministry of Migration Policy, which is responsible for designing and managing Greece’s overall immigration policy, as well as migrant reception and identification. The activation of the EU-Turkey Statement in March 2016 (European Council, 2016) curbed the migration flow significantly.

At the height of the migration influx in 2015, Greece provided shelter to 857 000 migrants (European Asylum Support Office, 2017). Because the migration pattern is mixed, with people coming from countries in conflict and from countries that are not (International Organization for Migration [IOM], 2017), the identification and asylum-granting process in the Greek islands is very long. By mid-2018, Greece was still hosting 65 000 persons with refugee profile, including 17 000 still waiting on the islands.

Since the early days of the crisis and up until mid-2018, Greece has adapted its domestic policies to create the conditions for peaceful co-existence between refugees, asylum seekers and the Greek population. Once they have arrived on the mainland, refugees can access the Emergency Support to Integration and Accommodation programme funded by the European Union (UNHCR, 2018), which provides them with shelter and financial support (ranging from USD 101.50 to USD 620 per month depending on family composition). They receive a social security number, which offers them access to healthcare, education, Greek language courses, free transportation and the labour market. Greece focuses on access to education, integrating asylum seekers’ children into regular Greek classes in a bid to spare children from experiencing a long gap without formal education, which would create a lost generation of uneducated youth in Europe. Those measures are good examples of policies carefully translated into action.

Sources: European Asylum Support Office (2017), “Operating plan agreed by EASO and Greece”, European Asylum Support Office, Valletta Harbour and Athens, https://www.easo.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Greece%20OP%202018-13-12-2017.pdf; European Commission (2018), “EU-Turkey Statement – Two Years On”, https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/20180314_eu-turkey-two-years-on_en.pdf; European Council (2016), “EU-Turkey Statement”, European Council, Brussels, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/eu-turkey-statement/; Frontex (2015), Risk Analysis for 2016, https://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Risk_Analysis/Annula_Risk_Analysis_2016.pdf; IOM (2017), “Migration flows to Europe 2017 overview”,

https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/2017_Overview_Arrivals_to_Europe.pdf;

Migration Policy Centre (2015), http://www.migrationpolicycentre.eu/greece/; UNHCR (2018), “ESTIA: A new chapter in the lives of refugees in Greece”, http://estia.unhcr.gr/en/home/.

Country-level engagement

Peer review indicator: The member’s engagement in partner countries is consistent with its domestic and international commitments, including those specific to fragile states

Once Greece resumes country-level engagement, it should develop country strategies in close consultation with its key partner countries. The development impact of Greece’s scholarship programme needs to be determined.

Greece should base its future country-level engagement on country strategies

The 2006 and 2011 DAC peer reviews recommended that Greece base its country-level engagement on country strategies (OECD, 2006, 2013). Due to the suspension of bilateral programmes in 2011, Greece has not developed country strategies. When it resumes its country engagement in the future, Greece should consider strategies that:

apply the principles of ownership and mutual accountability

apply the principles of development effectiveness to which Greece has subscribed

rest on contextual analysis, using an appropriate mix of aid-delivery instruments and partners in response to partner countries’ changing needs and capacity

are transparent about conditions (if any).

Greece’s technical co-operation responds directly and flexibly to countries’ demands, and mostly focuses on policing and firefighting (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2018).³ Although small in size during the reviewed period, it is valued by its immediate neighbours and is a good basis for structuring a future bilateral programme. Furthermore, Greece has signed a number of bilateral agreements on topics including securing sports events; fisheries and aquaculture; the environment and climate change adaptation; tourism; scientific exchange; diplomatic training; and EU accession processes.

The impact of Greece’s scholarship programme is uncertain

Although they have decreased over the years, scholarships remain Greece’s most important bilateral activity, along with support to refugees. An integrated and coherent scholarship programme could be an important component of future country strategies. The current programmes are not aligned with partner countries’ priorities, and partner countries are not involved in selecting students and fields of study.

In 2002, the DAC recommended that Greece reduce the number of scholarship schemes, and streamline selection procedures and award conditions (OECD, 2003). The Ministry of Foreign Affairs publishes a voluntary list of 25 priority countries for the scholarship programmes; this is a welcome step towards greater coherence. Nevertheless, the number of programmes is still high, each acting independently, without a coherent approach.⁴

Greece has taken initial steps to evaluate the impact of its scholarships on capacity building in developing countries, as recommended in the 2011 DAC peer review (OECD, 2013). Following approval by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in July 2018 of a strategy paper on scholarships, an inter-ministerial meeting has agreed a road-map to implement this strategy.

Greece’s bilateral co-operation is highly tied

Greece’s aid is traditionally highly tied. Since 2011, tied aid has comprised at least 67% of bilateral official development assistance (ODA), except for 2016, where only 9.7% of bilateral ODA was tied (Figure 5.1). The high percentage of tied aid is a result of Greece’s focus on scholarships and imputed student costs, which the DAC defines as tied aid. Their sharp reduction, from USD 10 million in 2015 to USD 2 million in 2016, explains the increase in untied aid in 2016 (Annex B, Table B.2).

Figure 5.1. Greece's untied aid status, 2011-16

Note: Excluding administrative costs and in-donor refugee costs.

Sources: OECD (forthcoming), Development Co-operation Report 2018: Joining Forces to Leave No One Behind; OECD (2017), Development Co-operation Report 2017: Data for Development, https://doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2017-en; OECD (2016), Development Co-operation Report 2016: The Sustainable Development Goals as Business Opportunities, https://doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2016-en; OECD (2015), Development Co-operation Report 2015: Making Partnerships Effective Coalitions for Action, https://doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2015-en; OECD (2014), Development Co-operation Report 2014: Mobilising Resources for Sustainable Development, https://doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2014-en; OECD (2013b), Development Co-operation Report 2013: Ending Poverty, https://doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2013-en.

References

Government sources

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2018), “Memorandum submitted by the Greek Authorities to the Development Assistance Committee/DAC of the OECD”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Athens (unpublished).

Other sources

EASO (2017), “Operating plan agreed by EASO and Greece”, European Asylum Support Office, Valletta Harbour and Athens, https://www.easo.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Greece%20OP%202018-13-12-2017.pdf.

European Commission (2018), “EU-Turkey Statement – Two Years On”, European Commission, Brussels, https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/20180314_eu-turkey-two-years-on_en.pdf.

Frontex (2015), Risk Analysis for 2016, European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, Warsaw, https://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Risk_Analysis/Annula_Risk_Analysis_2016.pdf.

IOM (2017), “Migration flows to Europe 2017 overview”, International Organization for Migration, Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland, https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/2017_Overview_Arrivals_to_Europe.pdf.

Migration Policy Centre (2015), “Greece”, webpage, http://www.migrationpolicycentre.eu/greece/ (accessed 10 July 2018). OECD (forthcoming), Development Co-operation Report 2018: Joining Forces to Leave No One Behind, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2017), Development Co-operation Report 2017: Data for Development, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2017-en.

OECD (2016), Development Co-operation Report 2016: The Sustainable Development Goals as Business Opportunities, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2016-en.

OECD (2015), Development Co-operation Report 2015: Making Partnerships Effective Coalitions for Action, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2015-en.

OECD (2014), Development Co-operation Report 2014: Mobilising Resources for Sustainable Development, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2014-en.

OECD (2013a), Development Co-operation Report 2013: Ending Poverty, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2013-en.

OECD (2013b), OECD Development Assistance Peer Reviews: Greece 2011, OECD Development Assistance Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264117112-en.

OECD (2006), "DAC Peer Review of Greece", OECD Journal on Development, Vol. 7/4, OECD, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/journal_dev-v7-art40-en.

OECD (2003), "Development Co-operation Review of Greece", OECD Journal on Development, Vol. 3/2, OECD, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/journal_dev-v3-art12-en.

UNHCR (2018), “ESTIA –A new chapter in the lives of refugees in Greece”, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Greece website, http://estia.unhcr.gr/en/home/ (accessed 9 August 2018).

Notes

 1.  Greece could complement its annual budget planning with an indicative multi-year plan.

 2.  Greece’s general call for proposals tended to disperse funds too widely, limiting the possibility of a strategic approach and leading to “a supply-driven system instead of a partner country demand-led approach which would foster ownership” (OECD, 2006).

 3.  In 2015, the Hellenic Police (Ministry of Interior) trained Albanian, Sudanese and Ukrainian police officers on topics including traffic legislation; combating human trafficking and drug trafficking; managing evidence and crime data; and border controls. The Hellenic Fire Service (Ministry of Citizen Protection) helped fight forest fires in Albania in 2012 and donated firefighting materials to the country in 2014. In 2012, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport provided assistance and technical support for evaluating and monitoring the reconstruction of a hospital in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and a road project in Albania.

 4.  Five ministries and one state foundation offer scholarship programmes for foreign students: the Ministry of Education Research and Religious Affairs; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Insular Policy; the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Rural Development and Food; and the State Scholarship Foundation.

Chapter 6.

Greece’s results, evaluation and learning

This chapter considers how Greece plans and manages for results in line with the Sustainable Development Goals, building evidence of what works, and using this to learn and adapt. A fit-for-purpose, results-based management system is needed for Greek development co-operation. Greece is not meeting its legal requirement for an annual evaluation of bilateral development co-operation or aggregate evaluation of its development co-operation. In developing an evaluation system, Greece might draw on the experience of members of the DAC Network on Development Evaluation. Deriving a good understanding of the development co-operation results achieved by Greece, and drawing lessons from evaluations, would help Greece to improve decision-making and provide a basis for learning.

Management for development results

Peer review indicator: A results-based management system is being applied

Greece’s development co-operation does not focus on results. The Directorate General of International Development Cooperation-Hellenic Aid of the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DG Hellenic Aid) has spent considerable time since 2011 following up on the use of grants dating as far back as 2000. This experience has made it clear that a fit-for-purpose, results-based management system is needed for Greek development co-operation.

Greece lacks a fit-for-purpose, results-based management system

The 2006 and 2011 OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer reviews of Greece’s development co-operation highlighted the need for Greece to develop a results-based focus for its development co-operation (OECD, 2006, 2013). A results-based focus would shift DG Hellenic Aid’s approach to monitoring development activities from emphasising inputs and financial controls, to achieving outputs and outcomes. Nevertheless, Greece does not yet have a results-based focus or management system for its development co-operation.

The staff of DG Hellenic Aid have spent considerable time since 2011 determining whether recipients of grants – non-governmental organisations (NGOs), bilateral partners, international organisations and multilateral institutions – have met the terms of their funding agreements and fully utilised the grants. In instances where they have not done so, or funds remain unspent, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has sought reimbursement from the recipient. Grants to NGOs included in this review date as far back as 2000; grants to other recipients cover 2008-10 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2018).

As a result of this experience, DG Hellenic Aid recognises that a new legal framework should establish an efficient ex-ante and ex-post monitoring and evaluation mechanism (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2018). In designing such a mechanism, DG Hellenic Aid is encouraged to draw on the advice outlined in the 2006 and 2011 DAC peer reviews (OECD, 2006, 2013), as well as lessons learnt within the OECD/DAC Results Community¹ and the experience of other similar-sized DAC members.

A fit-for-purpose, results-based management system should apply to multilateral and bilateral co-operation. It should include:

results-oriented policies and strategies that state the objectives of development co-operation policies and programmes in terms that can be measured, and explicitly mention development results that are consistent with the Sustainable Development Goals and targets, with a clearly articulated chain of expected outcomes (from activities to impacts)

a monitoring system that provides quality disaggregated information on overarching goals along the results chain (from output to impact), drawing on qualitative and quantitative information (including from evaluations) and partner countries’ own data, systems and result frameworks; minimising where possible the introduction of additional indicators, separate data collection and parallel reporting requirements

utilisation of results information for learning and improving programme management, and communicating the results of aid transparently and credibly; endowing headquarters and field staff with the capacity, tools and incentives to use this information.

In particular, Greece’s engagement with multilateral and regional institutions might be enhanced by a clear understanding of the results achieved by this significant investment in official development assistance.

Evaluation system

Peer review indicator: The evaluation system is in line with the DAC evaluation principles

Greece is not meeting its legal requirement for an annual evaluation of bilateral development co-operation or aggregate evaluation of its development co-operation. In developing a fit-for-purpose evaluation system, Greece might draw on the experience of members of the DAC Network on Development Evaluation.

An evaluation system would help Greece learn lessons about its development co-operation

An evaluation system provides “regular information on the effectiveness of development co-operation interventions as a whole and on specific contributions of the various stakeholders involved in co-operation” (OECD, 2016a). An evaluation system would normally include:

an evaluation policy and an evaluation function endowed with sufficient expertise to ensure quality in the evaluation process

an evaluation process that is impartial and independent from policy making and the delivery of development co-operation

an overall plan and dedicated budget for evaluating development co-operation activities.

The 2002 DAC peer review noted that Law 2731/1999 requires each implementing ministry/agency to undertake an annual evaluation of its bilateral development co-operation programme, which should form the basis of an aggregate evaluation of Greece’s development co-operation. It recognised each implementing ministry/agency was unlikely to establish its own evaluation policy or independent evaluation unit, and suggested establishing a single evaluation policy and evaluation unit for Greece’s aid system. It also suggested that Greece seek opportunities to participate in joint evaluation exercises of multilateral agencies with other donors (OECD, 2002; Government of Greece, 1999).

Subsequent peer reviews recommended creating an evaluation unit, guided by an evaluation policy that clearly defines the role of evaluation, as well as the unit’s functions, responsibilities and place in Greece’s institutional structure for development co-operation (OECD, 2006, 2011). Greece has not followed up on these recommendations.

As DG Hellenic Aid has found in recent years, it is important that Greece learn lessons from its experience in implementing bilateral and multilateral development co-operation initiatives, and from the experience of other DAC members. In considering the creation of a fit-for-purpose evaluation system, Greece might draw on the extensive experience of members of the DAC Network on Development Evaluation and its 2016 review of evaluation systems in development co-operation (OECD, 2016a).²

Institutional learning

Peer review indicator: Evaluations and appropriate knowledge management systems are used as management tools

Deriving a good understanding of the development co-operation results achieved by Greece, and drawing lessons from evaluations, would help DG Hellenic Aid improve its decision making and provide a basis for learning.

Knowledge management would improve accountability, communication, direction and learning

Knowledge management is important to achieving an efficient, effective and accountable development co-operation system. Systematic documentation and transparent dissemination of information on results, and findings from evaluations and audits, can improve the accountability and communications of development co-operation providers, and inform their direction and learning (OECD, 2008, 2016b).

A good understanding of the development co-operation results Greece has achieved, and lessons drawn from evaluations, would help DG Hellenic Aid improve its decision-making and provide a basis for learning. It would also allow Greece to communicate better with the public and account for its use of taxpayer funds.

Greece is an active member of the DAC, and participates in United Nations, European Union and regional processes. It could enhance its contributions to these fora by drawing on knowledge generated from its results, evaluations and organisational performance.

References

Government sources

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2018), “Memorandum submitted by the Greek Authorities to the Development Assistance Committee/DAC of the OECD”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Athens.

Other sources

OECD (2016a), Evaluation Systems in Development Co-operation: 2016 Review, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264262065-en.

OECD (2016b), “Providers’ Use of Results Information for Accountability Communication, Direction and Learning: Survey Results, August 2016”, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/dac/results-development/docs/Providers'_use_of_results_information_for_accountability_communication_direction_and_learning.pdf.

OECD (2013), OECD Development Assistance Peer Reviews: Greece 2011, OECD Development Assistance Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264117112-en.

OECD (2008), Effective Aid Management: Twelve lessons from DAC Peer Reviews, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/dac/peer-reviews/40720533.pdf.

OECD (2006), Greece: Development Assistance Committee Peer Review, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/dac/peer-reviews/38023102.pdf.

OECD (2002), Development Co-operation Review: Greece, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/dac/peer-reviews/2076414.pdf.

Notes

 1.  The OECD/DAC Results Community is an informal network dedicated to results-based management for effective development co-operation. It is supported by the OECD Development.

Co-operation Directorate on behalf of the OECD/DAC: www.oecd.org/dac/results-development/results-community.htm.

 2.  The DAC Network on Development Evaluation contributes to better development results, using evaluation to build a strong evidence base for both policy making and learning: www.oecd.org/development/evaluation/.

Chapter 7.

Greece’s humanitarian assistance

This chapter looks at how Greece minimises the impact of shocks and crises, as well as how it works to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain human dignity in crisis and disaster settings. Over the review period, Greek humanitarian aid was limited to one-off assistance and has now almost completely stalled. Despite this, Greece is involved in global and European policy fora to promote more effective humanitarian aid. The Directorate General of International Development Cooperation-Hellenic Aid could use this time to reflect on how Greece could build a distinctive humanitarian comparative advantage in order to make a meaningful contribution when it is able to reactivate its bilateral humanitarian aid. Greece will have to strengthen its own capacity, including in civil protection. It will also need to reinforce its partnerships, notably with its own civil society, which has gained deep humanitarian experience while responding to the crises.

Strategic framework

Peer review indicator: Clear political directives and strategies for resilience, response and recovery

Over the review period, Greek humanitarian aid was limited to one-off assistance and has now almost completely stalled. In 2016, Greece complemented its significant efforts to manage incoming migration flows with a substantial participation in the humanitarian window of the EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey. Despite its meagre humanitarian capacities, Greece is involved in global and European policy fora to promote more effective humanitarian aid.

Greece has no humanitarian policy, but follows the humanitarian policy landscape

Greek humanitarian aid is rooted in the 1999 law that created Hellenic Aid (Government of Greece, 1999). Different ministries – notably finance, foreign affairs, health and national defence – can provide humanitarian assistance through in-kind aid and civil protection assets. Greece does not have a specific humanitarian policy and (as noted in the previous review) has not clearly defined its humanitarian goals (OECD, 2013). However, Greece participates in humanitarian policy fora, such as the European Council’s Working Party on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid (COHAFA). At the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit, Greece made 21 commitments, many of them relating to migration management and refugee protection. Other World Humanitarian Summit commitments align with Greece’s effort in peace building and conflict prevention (Chapter 1). Greece’s internal policy and practice in receiving migrants broadly aligns with those pledges (Chapter 5).

Humanitarian aid has stalled

The 1999 decree fixed the target of attributing 25% of Greece’s development assistance funds to humanitarian aid (Government of Greece, 1999). Greece has not reached this target; in 2015-16, its average humanitarian aid stood at 3.5%, compared with the OECD Development Assistance Committee average of 11.9%1 (OECD, 2018). Since 2011, the level of Greek humanitarian aid has remained below USD 1 million (US dollars). The country’s current economic and social situation does not yet allow resuming a stronger humanitarian programme, as in-donor refugee costs still represent the main share of Greek official development assistance (ODA) (Figure 7.1). In 2016, Greece only reported USD 8 million in humanitarian aid to the EU Facility for Refugees. In 2017, it reported a single project totalling USD 360 577 to the humanitarian Financial Tracking System (FTS) managed by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), reflecting the priority accorded to the Syria crisis, which drives many people to seek asylum in Europe by passing through Greece.²

Figure 7.1. Evolution of Greek humanitarian aid

Source: OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) (n.d.), www.oecd.org/dac/stats .

Effective programme design

Peer review indicator: Programmes target the highest risk to life and livelihood

Because the Directorate General of International Development Cooperation-Hellenic Aid of the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DG Hellenic Aid) is not involved in the response to large-scale domestic humanitarian needs, the gap is widening with a very active civil society that is building its expertise and capacity. DG Hellenic Aid could use this time to reflect on how Greece could build a distinctive humanitarian comparative advantage in order to make a meaningful contribution when it is able to reactivate its bilateral humanitarian aid.

A widening gap between government and civil society

Since Greece does not have a specific humanitarian strategy, it relies on its embassy network, the European Union or its operational partners to relay a humanitarian request from an affected country. Mainly because of the migration flows to Europe through Greece that occurred due to the crisis in Syria, the Middle East became a clear priority; since 2016, Greek humanitarian action has been routed to the Syria crisis.

Greece provides its humanitarian aid either directly – through direct financial or in-kind support to the affected country, notably in response to natural disasters – or indirectly – through operational partners, such as UN agencies Greece decides to support or Greek non-governmental organisations (NGOs) selected through a call for proposals. The last call for proposals for humanitarian aid was organised in 2009. Relations with the humanitarian NGOs has been marred by fraud allegations and the ongoing court cases, creating a gap between government and civil society organisations (CSOs), including religious CSOs. This gap is widening, because NGOs are very active in responding to the current domestic humanitarian needs, whereas DG Hellenic Aid is not involved in the response to the domestic migration crisis.

Greece can use this crisis time to build a comparative advantage

When Greece is able to reactivate its humanitarian aid, it will be useful for DG Hellenic Aid to craft a targeted approach. It could focus on a limited area of sectoral expertise in which it could add value to the overall humanitarian community, as when it supported the humanitarian co-ordination in Syria in 2017. As seen with other countries, such a niche approach is a good way for a donor with a modest budget to make a meaningful contribution to a humanitarian response. Greece could use this time where it is not undertaking humanitarian operations to reflect on whether it wants to build such a comparative advantage, what that could be, and which partnerships would be required to take it forward.

Effective delivery, partnerships and instruments

Peer review indicator: Delivery modalities and partnerships help deliver quality assistance

Greece is undergoing simultaneous crises, such as the migration crisis and natural hazards. With limited capacity to cope with immense needs, Greece has relied on adapted EU emergency mechanisms. When crisis needs wane, Greece will have to strengthen its own capacity, including in civil protection. It will also need to reinforce its partnerships, notably with its own civil society, which has gained deep humanitarian experience while responding to the crises.

EU Civil Protection certification should be a priority

Because Greece is subject to a broad range of natural or man-made disasters domestically, it has built a civil protection capacity and is connected to the European Response Coordination Centre. The General Secretariat for Civil Protection under the Ministry of Interior also sends assistance abroad, e.g. to Serbia or Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 2014 floods. The Greek Civil Protection is not yet certified under the EU Civil Protection Mechanism.³ Given its exposure to hazards and its geographic position, upgrading Greece’s national response capacity to EU standards could strengthen its ability to deploy civil protection assets in other countries in the Western Balkan region.

The EU framework represents new opportunities to rebuild partnership with NGOs

DG Hellenic Aid is not involved in the response to domestic humanitarian issues. By contrast, Greek CSOs are thoroughly involved in responding to the emergency needs of migrants on the islands and their longer-term needs on the mainland. In doing so, they have acquired significant experience, co-ordinating with the Greek security apparatus and administration, as well as foreign partners and donors, such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organization for Migration and the European Union.

No Greek NGO had a Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA) with the European Commission’s Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (DG ECHO) before the current migration crisis, meaning none of them was able to receive funds from DG ECHO to support their action. Recognising the instrumental role of Greek NGOs in meeting humanitarian needs in Greece, DG ECHO has launched a specific FPA for action within the European Union;⁴ this procedure has already benefited three Greek NGOs.⁵ This enhanced national humanitarian expertise could be an opportunity for the Greek Government to rebuild trust between DG Hellenic Aid and the Greek humanitarian NGOs, which would prove useful when Greece is ready to resume a fully fledged humanitarian programme.

Organisation fit for purpose

Peer review indicator: Systems, structures, processes and people work together effectively and efficiently

DG Hellenic Aid could use this time to reflect with relevant stakeholders on the nature of Greece’s added value when its aid volume recovers.

Greece keeps abreast of humanitarian policy development

Only one person follows humanitarian issues within DG Hellenic Aid, mainly focusing on advocacy and international events, notably through the COHAFA. Even without available funds for bilateral humanitarian aid, Greece follows discussions in the global policy arena to keep abreast of evolving humanitarian issues. DG Hellenic Aid could also take the opportunity of its minimal humanitarian operations to liaise with other relevant ministries and CSOs to discuss and start planning for Greece’s potential added value in responding to future crises.

Results, learning and accountability

Peer review indicator: Results are measured and communicated, and lessons learnt

The Greek Government has created a special service within the Ministry of Digital Policy, Telecommunications and Information to streamline communication about the migration crisis. Establishing an ad-hoc communication line is good practice when government action involves different ministries.

Greece has established a good intergovernmental communication structure

Without a proper humanitarian programme to manage, DG Hellenic Aid does not have results to measure or communicate. However, many other ministries and government departments are involved in responding to the migration crisis. In 2016, the Ministry of Digital Policy, Telecommunications and Information established a Special Secretariat for Crisis Management Communication, which focuses on communicating migration and refugee policy, and regularly issues a public document communicating the government response and providing official figures (Government of Greece, 2018). Such communication materials are useful when many ministries are involved in the crisis response, and when such large-scale crises fuel interdependence between the media and the domestic political agenda (Terlixidou, 2016).

References

Government sources

Government of Greece (2018), Newsletter On the Refugee-Migration Issue, No. 2, 2018, Ministry of Digital Policy, Telecommunication and Media, Special Secretariat for Crisis Management Communication, Athens, http://mindigital.gr/index.php/pliroforiaka-stoixeia/.

Government of Greece (1999), Law 2731/1999, Article 18, Paragraph 1 (Official Gazette 138A/5-7-1999) on the “Regulation of Matters of Bilateral Development Cooperation and Assistance, Non-Governmental Organizations and Other Provisions”, https://nomoi.info/ΦΕΚ-Α-138-1999-σελ-1.html (in Greek).

Other sources

OECD (2018), “Aid at glance by donor, data visualisation by donor”, OECD website, https://public.tableau.com/views/AidAtAGlance/DACmembers?:embed=y&:display_count=no?&:showVizHome=no#1 (accessed 9 August 2018).

OECD (2013), OECD Development Assistance Peer Reviews: Greece 2011, OECD Development Assistance Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264117112-en.

Terlixidou, K. (2016), “L’élaboration de l’agenda politique. La construction des problèmes publics: l’exemple du traitement de la crise migratoire en Grèce de l’été 2015”, research file, unpublished, University of Panthéon Sorbonne, Paris.

Notes

 1.  See ODA distribution by sector, OECD website: https://public.tableau.com/views/AidAtAGlance/DACmembers?%3Aembed=y&%3Adisplay_count=no%3F&%3AshowVizHome=no#1.

 2.  See the FTS managed by OCHA, 2017: https://fts.unocha.org/donors/4547/summary/2017.

 3.  The EU Mechanism for Civil Protection enables co-ordinated assistance from the participating governments to victims of natural and man-made disasters in Europe and elsewhere. The Mechanism currently includes all 28 EU Member States, as well as Iceland, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/what/civil-protection/mechanism_en.

 4.  Since March 2016, the Emergency Support Regulation allows the European Commission to conclude new FPAs to facilitate awarding financing to implement emergency support actions within the European Union: http://dgecho-partners-helpdesk.eu/become_a_partner/esr_fpa/start.

 5.  Médecins du Monde Greece, The Smile of the Child, and Metadrasi: https://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-site/files/weblistpartners_0718.pdf.

Annex A.

Progress with implementing the 2011 DAC peer review recommendations

Greece has not implemented the 2011 DAC peer review recommendations. It postponed refining and approving draft legislation, and subsequently introducing a five-year programme, to allow for completing an audit of previous projects funded by DG Hellenic Aid. Greece has experienced two crises: a severe economic crisis, which produced significant cuts in the national budget (including official development assistance [ODA]), from which the country is slowly recovering; and a refugee and migrant crisis, whose impact is ongoing.

Overall framework for development co-operation

2011 recommendations | Progress in implementation
To build a sound basis for a new, effective aid system and programme, Greece should: | Not implemented
Secure broad backing and ownership of the reform of Greek development co-operation by consulting across the administration and with government, parliament and civil society. This should help the approval and implementation of the reform. |
Include the recommendations of this peer review in the draft legislation and five-year programme to ensure a strong and sound basis for the reform and its implementation. |
Ensure that the reform is adopted and effectively implemented. |
To achieve a unified, coherent and effective development cooperation system and programme, Greece should: | Not implemented

Apply the principles and policy priorities outlined in the new law and draft programme to all actors of Greek development co-operation – i.e. activities financed through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ (MFA) development budgets and through the separate budget lines of other ministries - and make all institutional players accountable.

Formalise the proposed new inter-ministerial committee for co-ordinating international development policy; make membership by key line ministries mandatory, and outline rules of procedure and accountability mechanisms. |
Make the five-year programme, to be approved by the Council of Ministers, the binding government-wide medium-term strategy for development co-operation planning and implementation. |

Ensure that all relevant ministries are engaged in the finalisation and monitoring of the current draft five-year programme through the inter-ministerial committee, under DG Hellenic Aid’s leadership. Engage all relevant ministries and development actors early in the process of designing future five-year programmes.

Ensure that DG Hellenic Aid has the authority and capacity to take the lead in aid policy making, co-ordination, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. |

Development beyond aid

2011 recommendations | Progress in implementation
To ensure that all government policies support, or at least do not undermine development objectives, Greece should: | Not implemented
Make a clear commitment in the law and five-year programme to ensuring that domestic and international policies are coherent with its overall development goals. Outline clear priorities for coherence for development based on the EU programme, as well as steps for achieving these priorities. |
Ensure that the new law clearly mandates the inter-ministerial committee to scrutinise domestic, foreign and EU policy proposals for their impact on development and to monitor and report on the impact of incoherence in Greek policies on developing countries |
Reinforce DG Hellenic Aid’s role and capacity to support the inter-ministerial committee, and to promote and build awareness of policy coherence for development across the administration, parliament and Greek society. |

Aid volumes, channels and allocations

2011 recommendations | Progress in implementation
To allocate its aid resources strategically, and to maximise the overall value of these flows, Greece should: | Not implemented
Move to programmatic aid budgeting through multi-year planning, with indicative budgets proposed annually by the inter-ministerial committee. |
Identify all ODA expenditures, including those from line ministries’ budgets, in the state budget. |
Ensure that all development aid is planned and disbursed in the framework of the five-year programme, and responds to identified expected results. |
To focus its aid and make it more effective, Greece should: | Partially implemented
Concentrate its bilateral aid on a limited number of priority countries, based on strategy papers commonly agreed with the partner country. It should also reduce the number of projects it funds in these countries, so it can increase the funding allocated to a few strategic programmes. |
Evaluate whether and how a scholarships programme can contribute to strengthening capacity building in developing countries. |
Rationalise the aid channelled through multilateral agencies and NGOs by supporting fewer partners and larger programmes. |
Limit the range of sectors and sub-sectors that Greece will support, being clear how they relate to the overall policy priorities and Greece’s comparative advantages in development co-operation. |

Organisation and management

2011 recommendations | Progress in implementation
To make DG Hellenic Aid fit for purpose, Greece should: | Partially implemented
Restructure DG Hellenic Aid to make it simpler and flatter, with fewer directorates and larger teams focusing on key functions such as policy, programming and corporate processes. |

Use a new business model for delivering aid and limit calls for proposals to specific, targeted programmes. The line ministries that are to be implementing agencies should be identified through the five-year programme and in the country strategy papers. The country strategy papers, agreed together with the partner countries, should be the basis for delivering Greece’s bilateral aid.

Create a culture of results, monitoring and evaluation, by updating and rationalising DG Hellenic Aid’s procedures and creating an evaluation function following international standards. |
To improve development co-operation capacity and expertise despite DG Hellenic Aid’s constrained context, Greece should: | Not implemented
Promote development co-operation as a career path, and allow staff with an interest and competence in development to have longer-term assignments at DG Hellenic Aid and be posted to embassies in priority countries which are implementing projects and programmes. |

Invest in regular staff training on key aspects of managing development cooperation, in line with international best practice. Use training already provided by other donors, organise exchanges of staff with line ministries and other donors and use outside expertise (i.e. from civil society) where possible.

Recruit staff to DG Hellenic Aid based on clear development competencies and specific job descriptions. |

More effective aid and achieving results

Recommendations 2011 | Progress in implementation
To deliver on its commitments to deliver aid following the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action, Greece should: | Not implemented
Use the five-year programme as the basis for implementing the Paris and Accra principles and collaborate with line ministries in identifying common objectives and for monitoring progress. |
Employ a range of different ways to implement activities, including programme-based approaches and co-ordinated arrangements with other donors. |
Promote a culture of results orientation by planning, implementing and monitoring for results. |
Formulate priority country strategies in consultation with partner countries and other donors to foster ownership and alignment. |

Humanitarian assistance

Recommendations 2011 | Progress in implementation
To promote more coherent and strategic programming, Greece should finalise its legal framework and cross-government strategic plan for humanitarian assistance. This will also require: | Not implemented
Stronger links with overall Greek development priorities and a better reflection of Greece’s comparative advantage. |
Continued formal legal recognition of the Good Humanitarian Donorship principles. |
Coherence with Greek development programmes, country strategies and operations. |
To support its new humanitarian framework and deliver coherent programming, Greece should: | Not implemented
Streamline procedures for working with NGOs and other donors, develop strategic partnerships with key operational actors, and deliver more flexible and predictable funding. |
Develop a coherent and transparent system for monitoring programme results and learning lessons. |
Outline clear criteria and guidelines for Greek in-kind aid. |

Figure A.1. Greece’s implementation of 2011 peer review recommendations

Annex B.

OECD/DAC standard suite of tables

Table B.1. Total financial flows

USD million at current prices and exchange rates

Table B.2. ODA by main categories

Table B.3. Bilateral ODA allocable1 by region and income group

Table B.4. Main recipients of bilateral ODA

Table B.5. Bilateral ODA by major purposes

At constant prices and exchange rates

Table B.6. Comparative aid performance of DAC members

Table B.7. Comparative performance of aid to least-developed countries

Figure B.1. Net ODA from DAC countries in 2017: Preliminary figures

Annex C.

Organisational structure

Figure C.2. Current organigram of DG Hellenic Aid

Notes: EOSDOS = Inter-Ministerial Committee for the Organization and Coordination of International Economic Relations; NGO = non-governmental organisation; YDAS = Directorate General of International Development Cooperation.

This work is published on the OECD iLibrary, which gathers all OECD books, periodicals and statistical databases.

Visit www.oecd-ilibrary.org for more information.

Contact Us • Alerts

Follow us on:

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

The OECD is a unique forum where governments work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies.

The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Union takes part in the work of the OECD.

OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members.

DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE

To achieve its aims, the OECD has set up a number of specialised committees. One of these is the Development Assistance Committee (DAC), whose mandate is to promote development co-operation and other policies so as to contribute to sustainable development – including pro-poor economic growth, poverty reduction and the improvement of living standards in developing countries – and to a future in which no country will depend on aid. To this end, the DAC has grouped the world’s main donors, defining and monitoring global standards in key areas of development.

The members of the DAC are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The DAC issues guidelines and reference documents in the DAC Guidelines and Reference Series to inform and assist members in the conduct of their development co-operation programmes.

OECD PUBLISHING, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16