abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

The content is also available in the following languages: français

Article

14 Jun 2021

Author:
European NGO Coalition on Conflict Minerals / Coalition européenne des ONG sur les minerais de conflit

New report shows diverging implementation of EU conflict minerals regulation across Member States

9 June 2021

Today, a Coalition of European NGOs working on responsible mineral sourcing have published a review paper discussing the state of implementation of the European Conflict Minerals Regulation across European Union (EU) Member States. The report highlights the shortcomings of the Regulation and the general lack of transparency that hinders effective and efficient monitoring of companies.

The European Conflict Minerals Regulation, also called the Regulation on Responsible Sourcing of Minerals, entered into full force on January 1st, 2021. By now, each EU Member State should have set up a Competent Authority and specified the rules of surveillance of implementation at national level. However, the implementation progress varies greatly from one country to another. The report offers a comparison of the implementation process across EU Member States,[1] allowing to identify who the frontrunners are. Austria and the Czech Republic are the best performers regarding transparency, while Finland and the Netherlands do not go as far but also have interesting provisions, and some other Members States lag far behind.

The adoption of the legislation offers an important step towards limiting the import of 3TG minerals[2] into the EU. However, it is important to keep in mind that this legislation is the outcome of complex and lengthy negotiations, which resulted in political compromises, leading to several risks affecting its effectiveness. These shortcomings could be used by companies to avoid obligations and not comply with the provision of the Regulation.

The NGO coalition highlights the mains risks at stake. The missing obligation within the Regulation towards sanctions and the divergent implementation of the law regarding control mechanisms or sanctions is of great concern for civil society actors. It is feared that the final impact of the legislation will be undermined by these fluctuations and lack in enforcement mechanisms like sanctions...

Another severe shortcoming is the lack of transparency over which company falls under the Regulation and the actual ability to link upstream production with the EU imports...

Finally, the application of volume import thresholds risks excluding the riskiest imports and lead to possibilities for companies to bypass the Regulation.

The coalition of NGOs lists a series of preliminary recommendations ahead of the official review process that the European Commission will first conduct on January 1, 2023...

Timeline