Brussels, 06/04/2016 (Agence Europe) - Talks between the European Parliament, Council and Commission on the future of EU legislation aimed at limiting the financing of military and armed groups in conflict areas (such as the Great Lakes region in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in East Africa) through trade in tin, gold, tantalum and tungsten - the so-called conflict minerals legislation - remain blocked after the most recent negotiation session on Tuesday 5 April. The discussions are not expected to resume until the Council renews its position at ministerial level in mid-May.
“The European Parliament has shown flexibility and openness to negotiate a compromise solution that results in an effective regulation that is workable and not burdensome for small companies. Yet the Council of Ministers has not been able to come up with a mandate for negotiation at this stage”, said shadow rapporteur for the S&D Group, Marie Arena (Belgium), on Tuesday.
“If the Council is serious about the importance of preventing human rights abuses in the name of profit they should now show real flexibility to move towards a regulation that not only covers the raw materials but also the products made out of them”, she said.
The positions of the Parliament and Council are still far apart as to the nature of the monitoring system for the supply chain of the materials targeted by this draft legislation.
The Parliament wants a text which would bind EU companies using these metals in the production of high technology goods (such as mobile phones and computers) to carry out controls in order to reduce the risk of their suppliers trading in conflict minerals.
However, the Council only wants voluntary controls that would be weaker than the international standards to which the member states have already signed up - the duty of diligence, making companies responsible for supervising and administering their purchases and sales of these materials in line with the five steps set out by the OECD in its guidelines on the duty of diligence (see EUROPE 11484) - and only applicable to companies importing minerals and metals.
To bring these positions closer together, the Commission (which proposed its initial draft text in March 2014 - see EUROPE 11032 - on which MEPs decided in May 2015 not to finalise the position in first reading - see EUROPE 11318) made an alternative proposal at the start of February. This was a half-way compromise, proposing a binding system on the link at the start of the supply chain (smelters, refiners, including raw minerals, plus metal ores - the initial processing).
In the Commission's view, European companies, particularly SMEs, would not at this stage be able to identify all the stages of the chain, or thus to respond to constraints such as those imposed on US companies as part of the USA Dodd Franck Act of 2010.
At this stage, no date has currently been set for a new trilogue on this thorny issue. However, the negotiations are not expected to resume until the Council defines its position at a trade ministers meeting on 13 May.
In the meantime, the S&D Group is keeping up pressure for the Council greatly to strengthen this draft legislation on stemming the trade in conflict minerals. The S&D Group insists on a legally binding framework “to make sure that fair trade does not depend on the good will of companies”.
“Member states also have a historic opportunity to deliver and make a difference” in eliminating the trade in conflict minerals, said S&D Group leader Gianni Pittella (Italy) on Tuesday. “Our citizens have shown over and over that they want to be able to make ethical decisions, so let's give them the information they deserve. We cannot accept the EU being directly or indirectly responsible for human rights violations by using products that fuel armed conflict and violence in Africa and elsewhere”, he continued.
“A mandatory scheme is absolutely vital and our political group has a strong commitment to achieving it, sooner or later. There have been voluntary guidelines in place for five years and over 80% of companies have chosen not to publish any information on their supply chain according to due diligence standards. These mandatory requirements, while not a burden on any one link in the supply chain, will make a huge difference to those on the ground in conflict areas”, stated David Martin MEP (UK). (Original version in French by Emmanuel Hagry)