key element of the weakness was the lack of planning and sustainability of the actions. In the chapter on accommodation (B1) and, to a lesser extent, provision of food (B2), which present the situation in detail, there are examples of the failures that occurred and are still occurring with the allocation of the funds. Moreover, there are indications from on-site inspections carried out by the Ombudsman, that the choices made at places were not always the most rational as regards the most effective way to address the needs of the refugees and migrants. If we can understand an inability in 2015 of the state mechanisms to plan, allocate and use in the best possible way the funds they had available, this does not apply for 2016, and certainly not the present year. Up to this day there is no, at least Transparency and accountability apparent, single, consistent, detailed statement of the funds made available both by EU and international bodies, and the Greek Administration, for the management of the entry and stay of those refugees/migrants who entered from spring 2015 onwards. With the exception of the Ministry of National Defence, no other ministry or state agency has made public comprehensive data in a uniform, consistent and detailed manner, which facilitates their processing and control. Even though such announcements are not so rarely made the subject of political confrontations or easy out-of-hand criticism, in modern European democracies such types of “reactions” are acceptable. In any event, the risk remains to this day, that the complaints and conjectures at times of mismanagement are consolidated in the minds of the public and attributed to the political system, without a previous serious and documented debate, that could potentially lead to completely different conclusions. To avoid this, all information, which the competent authorities must in fact have in a usable form, must be available, not only for their control, but also for receiving criticism.242 This does not pertain only to the most directly involved service (the Ministry of Migration Policy), but also other ministries, agencies of the local and regional government and each agency or authority related or dependent on the State (for example the Hellenic Center for Disease Control & Prevention). The assurance of transparency in issues of economic management of such a type, beyond being a quality characteristic of our democracy, also helps everyone in the better management and ultimately the recipients of the funds themselves. 242 In fact, the failure to publish data may be perceived as inability to collect them, a fact that is particularly serious, especially when related to high costs, such as those of the health system. After the EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016, coordinator positions opened for the RICs of the 5 islands.243 Law 4375/2016 provides for their appointment as staff of the Reception and Identification Service of the General Secretariat for Reception, established with the Coordinators/ same law, under which the RICs directors in the were administratively subjected, as Reception and regional services. However, for 10 Identification months the staff of the First RecepCenters (RICs) tion from Athens244 changed every month as head of the RICs on rotation, with consequent gaps in the coordination of the operation and the institutional cohesion and common understanding with the local authorities (Hellenic Police, army, Asylum Offices, municipalities, etc.). The European Commission noted in December 2016 “... their appointment has been repeatedly communicated in the past six months as imminent”.245 Finally, the directors of the five RICs were announced in February 2017. 1.3. Issues of coordination and competences that require immediate resolution What remains a serious issue in any case is the reinforcement of the RICs with permanent staff, which at this time is very small, and their needs are covered in their most part by contract staff. At the level of the Ministry of Migration Policy, it should be noted that the time gaps in the delegation of responsibilities to the initially appointed General Secretary for Reception and also to his successor - as well as delays in the organisation of the General Secretariat for Reception that was provided for on 4.4.2016 by Law 4375/2016 were inhibitory factors in the smooth functioning of the competences related to the ministry. Moreover, the reorganisation of the ministry services presented the same weaknesses (e.g. need for provision of a General Directorate of Financial Services, etc.), which had not been completed in 2016 as a result of its split as an independent ministry from the Ministry of Interior, in November 2016. 243 According to the draft for consultation they were initially to be appointed by the Minister of State. 244 Except for the RIC of Moria, which has the same temporary coordinator from the side of the First Reception service. 245 https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/ policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation-package/ docs/20161208/4th_report_on_the_progress_made_in_the_implementation_ of_the_eu-turkey_statement_en.pdf see pg. 7. 83