WRITTEN QUESTION E-1175/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL)and Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 April 2002)

Subject: Transfer of EU payments via the Al Barakaat remittance bank and consequences of UN Sanctions Committee restrictions

1. Can the Commission confirm the statement by the Netherlands Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Netherlands Parliament (Second Chamber Question 942 on sanctions against Al Barakaat) that the informal banks in the hawlidaad system (also known as remittance banks), including their largest, Al Barakaat bank, which is also involved in telecommunications and as an Internet provider, which transfer USD 200 to 500 million a year to Somalia, are also being used by the European Union to transfer money to Somalia?

2. Do these payments include funds for projects with which education adviser Leo Schellekens, who is acting on behalf of the EU, is endeavouring to revive schools after the destruction caused by the civil war in Somalia, partly as a means of providing the younger generation with a better prospect than civil war and terrorism?

3. Is continuation of the projects referred to in question 2 now being hampered because parents' contributions to costs are no longer coming in, as parents in Somalia (which is totally disrupted) do not have sources of income in the form of cash and family members abroad can no longer transfer money?

4. Are there are other EU-funded projects on behalf of the inhabitants of Somalia for which funds are transferred through Al Barakaat?

5. What is the total of EU funds currently being blocked as a consequence of the measures imposed by the United Nations Security Council in order to make it impossible for Al Barakaat to operate?

6. Have there been any plans for follow-up payments in the period since Al Barakaat was first unable to continue arranging international payments? Are these funds now reaching Somalia through smaller remittance banks, or are they being reserved for payment at a later date?

7. In what way and at what date will the Commission be making these funds available again for the purposes for which they are provided?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

1. to 4. As mentioned in the reply to written question E-0608/02(1) by the Honourable Member (M. Meijer), Al-Barakhat banking and transfer services are no longer operational as a result of United Nations Security Council resolutions, notably 1333 (2000) and 1390 (2002).

Other organisations such as Dahabshil, Amaala and the Union Bank of Somalia, which are not listed by the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council are still operating in the country. They are progressively filling the void left by al-Barakhat and represent the only way to carry out remittances from and to Somalia.

The measures involving Al-Barakhat did not affect significantly Community co-operation with Somalia.

Transfer of funds for Community interventions in all sectors is the responsibility of the contracting partners, United Nations agencies and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs). None of the Commission's contracting partners, including in the education sector, has mentioned difficulties related to the sanctions against Al-Barakhat and Community funded projects are not experiencing difficulties due to lack of financial resources.

Moreover, the Commission does not believe that there is a generalised problem affecting the users and/or beneficiaries of Community funded projects.

5. to 7. The Commission's only information on blocked transfers concerns the functioning of its three liaison offices, Somaliland, Puntland and Mogadishu. Only in the case of the latter did Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), who managed the liaison Offices in 2001 on behalf of the Commission, use Al-Barakhat services.

The blocked transfers concerning the Commission Liaison Office in Mogadishu represent USD 3 393. The Commission is unable to anticipate when these funds will be retrieved. Nevertheless, a lengthy procedure would not affect Community co-operation in Somalia in general nor the functioning of the liaison Office in Mogadishu, in particular.

(1) See page 14.