Gold from eastern Congo. The war in Congo is fueled by a thriving gold trade today, with armed groups controlling mines and earning an estimated 50 million dollars last year from selling gold and minerals. This gold is from a day's work at Kaniola mine. Credit: ENOUGH Project/cc by 2.0

By Carey L. Biron
WASHINGTON, Nov 25 2014 (IPS)

Major U.S. jewellery companies and retailers have started to take substantive steps to eliminate the presence of “conflict gold” from their supply chains, according to the results of a year-long investigation published Monday.

Rights advocates, backed by the United Nations, have been warning for years that mining revenues are funding warlords and militia groups operating in the Great Lakes region of Africa, particularly in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). In 2010, such concerns resulted in landmark legislation here in the United States aimed at halting this trade, and those laws have since spurred similar legislative proposals in the European Union and Canada.“Just a few years ago, jewellery companies were pretty resistant to making progress on this, but today there is clearly interest in supporting peace and finding out more about the role they can play in this issue." -- Holly Dranginis of Enough Project

Three of the most problematic of these “conflict minerals” – tin, tantalum and tungsten, collectively known as 3T – are used primarily by the electronics industry. In recent years, that sector has made notable progress in certifying and otherwise regulating its use of these materials.

Yet forward movement has been slower on the fourth conflict mineral from the Great Lakes region – gold.

“Over two-thirds of the eastern Congo’s 3T mines are conflict-free today,” a new report from the Enough Project, a Washington-based watchdog group, states.

“Gold, however, remains a major financial lifeline for armed actors. Ninety-eight percent of artisanally mined gold … is smuggled out of the country annually, and much of that gold benefits armed commanders.”

Last year, the report estimates, some eight to ten tons of gold were smuggled out of eastern DRC. That would have been worth more than 400 million dollars.

Much of this smuggling is thought to take place through Congo’s neighbours, particularly Uganda and Burundi, and onwards to Dubai. From there, most of this gold is able to anonymously enter the global marketplace.

The jewellery industry, meanwhile, is the largest user of global gold supplies, constituting slightly less than half of worldwide demand. “Conflict gold thus taints the industry as whole,” the report warns.

Pledging to stay

According to the Enough Project’s new rankings, however, the industry is starting to respond to these concerns. Researchers looked at both past and pledged actions by 14 of the largest jewellery companies and retailers in the United States – part of an industry worth some five billion dollars a year – and found a spectrum of initiatives already underway.

On the one hand, some companies appear to have undertaken no conflict minerals-related initiatives whatsoever, at least as far as the new report’s metrics were concerned. Three companies scored zero points, while others – including major retailers such as Walmart, Sears and Costco – scored very low.

On the other hand, the researchers found a few key companies that have undertaken particularly notable responses. They say there is reason to believe that these leaders could now influence the rest of the industry.

“We really wanted to focus on the leading jewellery retailers in the U.S. because of their leverage over the industry – we wanted to take lessons from our experience with the electronics industry, that leading companies can move an entire industry,” Holly Dranginis, a policy analyst with the Enough Project and the lead author on the new report, told IPS.

“Just a few years ago, jewellery companies were pretty resistant to making progress on this, but today there is clearly interest in supporting peace and finding out more about the role they can play in this issue. We found two very clear leaders among the 14.”

Those are two of the most recognizable jewellery brands and retailers in the world, Signet Jewelers and Tiffany & Co. Three others highlighted for recognition in the rankings are the commercial retailers J.C. Penney Company, Target Corp. and Cartier.

The Enough Project researchers sent a broad questionnaire to these companies, and Signet and Tiffany received the highest overall rankings. Yet Dranginis notes that what differentiates these companies is merely the fact that they have put in place policies around the sourcing of gold from the Great Lakes region.

Perhaps more importantly, these companies have also started engaging on the ground in countries such as the DRC. Over the past three years, for instance, Signet has pledged to continue sourcing certified gold from the country, rather than simply moving on to another country entirely. The company is also making its sourcing strategies open to others in the industry.

“We see our involvement in industry guidance and standards in the gold sector and the development and implementation of the Signet Responsible Sourcing Protocols as part of a broader initiative of ensuring responsible business practices through the entire jewellery supply chain, for gold and for all other materials,” David A. Bouffard, a vice president for Signet Jewelers, told IPS in a statement.

“It is important to us that our SRSPs are open public protocols which can be used by anyone in our industry, and which Signet’s suppliers can use to their benefit in their relationships with other customers.”

Tiffany, meanwhile, is making a concerted effort to assist local communities, particularly small-scale miners and their families. Both companies reportedly have individual executives that have taken a particular interest in the issue.

“One of the concerns has been that compliance with [U.S. conflict minerals laws] has pushed some companies to think they should leave the region and source elsewhere,” the Enough Project’s Dranginis says.

“Supporting community initiatives in the region is critical, because a lot of communities are affected by major market changes. We also need to ensure that gold miners and their families are supported in a comprehensive way, looking into sustainable projects, alternative livelihoods, financial inclusion and related issues.”

Certification capacity

Action by major brands is, of course, a key component in driving the global response to the impacts of conflict gold. Yet an important collection of multistakeholder and trade mechanisms has also sprung up in recent years, directly facilitating these initiatives.

Central to any attempt at tracking and regulating raw commodities, for instance, is a system of certification. And just as the electronics industry has been able to use metals smelters as an important lynchpin in this process, so too has the gold industry been able to start certifying gold refiners.

According to the new report, in 2012 just six gold refiners had been certified as “conflict free” by one such initiative, the Conflict Free Smelter Program. Two years later, that number has risen to 52 – though “there are still many refiners outside the system,” the study notes.

Advocates are also calling for stepped-up and coordinated action by governments. While the United States, European Union and Canada could all soon have legislation on the use of conflict minerals, some are increasingly pushing for action from the government of the United Arab Emirates aiming to constrict the flow of conflict gold through Dubai.

Likewise, India, Pakistan and China are among the most prominent consumers of gold worldwide, and thus constitute key sources of demand.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

The writer can be reached at cbiron@ips.org

An aerial view of the Luwowo coltan mine, near Rubaya in the northeastern province of North Kivu, DRC. Credit: MONUSCO Photos/ CC-BY-SA-2.0

By Carey L. Biron
WASHINGTON, Jun 3 2014 (IPS)

For the first time, nearly 1,300 U.S. companies have filed reports on whether the products they manufacture or sell are made with minerals that have bankrolled conflict in the Great Lakes region of central Africa.

Monday was the deadline for the filings, the first concrete results of a provision passed in 2010 by the U.S. Congress aimed at helping to end the long-running civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

Yet the law’s regulatory details have since been the target of sustained legal attacks from companies and lobby groups that have warned that fulfilling the reporting requirements would be onerous and even unconstitutional.

“In general we’re very disappointed with how vague many of the reports are, lacking much description on processes.” -- Carly Oboth, policy advisor at Global Witness
By Tuesday, however, it appeared that most companies expected to file a report on the so-called conflict minerals in their supply chains had done so. Those reports are now publicly available through the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the federal regulator tasked with implementing the rule, formally known as Section 1502.

“This is a historic day. Five years ago this issue wasn’t on anyone’s radar, and now consumers can look under the hood of what’s in a product,” Sasha Lezhnev, a senior policy analyst at the Enough Project, a Washington-based watchdog group, told IPS.

“I think many people knew what companies like Apple, Intel or HP had been doing, as they have been pretty proactive on this issue. But no one has known what companies like Walmart or GM [General Motors] have been doing.”

In 2009, the U.N. Security Council formally recognised that revenues from minerals extraction were strengthening multiple armed groups operating in eastern DRC. The electronics industry has been one of the most significant users of these minerals, which include tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold.

Since then, Lezhnev reports, 95 mines in the DRC have been validated as “conflict free”, while two-thirds of the tin, tantalum and tungsten mines in the country’s east have been demilitarised. Gold remains a significant problem, however, and the Enough Project and others are calling for more concerted action in tightening sourcing decisions, particularly from the jewellery industry.

Box-checking?

Under the SEC guidelines, companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges must now file annual reports describing their efforts to discern whether their products use conflict minerals and, if so, their plans for stopping this practice. Several thousand U.S. companies have been identified as potentially – and likely unwittingly – selling products containing conflict minerals.

The consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton has stated that it has been involved in the manufacture of circuit boards, electrical assemblies and surveillance recorders containing conflict minerals. Many of these products, the company noted, were manufactured for the U.S. government.

Yet most companies have reported incomplete results. Microsoft, for instance, states that it “cannot exclude the possibility” that its products contain conflict minerals, but also that it hasn’t yet been able to obtain full sourcing information from its “extensive and complex” supply chain.

Advocacy groups are also concerned that most companies aren’t providing information on what follow-up actions they took after surveying their suppliers, if any.

“In general we’re very disappointed with how vague many of the reports are, lacking much description on processes,” Carly Oboth, a policy advisor at Global Witness, a watchdog group that has supported the conflict minerals regulations, told IPS.

“We’re concerned with how companies have come to their conflict minerals status decision, as many are claiming that they’re ‘conflict indeterminable’ or ‘conflict free’ but not showing how they arrived at that conclusion. This isn’t supposed to be a box-checking exercise, but rather about showing that you’re not sourcing from a conflict zone.”

Global Witness says the majority of the reports that have been filed thus far have been “inadequate”.

Conflict-free competition

For many companies faced with auditing their supply chains, a key chokepoint has been the metal smelters that turn raw resources into workable products. An industry-led initiative, the Conflict-Free Smelter Programme, has been particularly prominent, having so far certified around 40 percent of the world’s smelters, according to the Enough Project’s Lezhnev.

Yet Global Witness’s Oboth says many companies have simply ascertained whether their suppliers have this certification, and then gone no farther.

“Instead, what we want them to do – and what the [SEC] rule requires – is to follow up with the smelters,” she says. “Intel, for instance, has made site visits to smelters to check on their conflict minerals policy, to see how they’re actually identifying risk.”

Indeed, Intel, the microprocessor manufacturer, has in many regards been the most proactive company on the issue. In January, it unveiled the world’s first “conflict-free” product, and ahead of the recent filing deadline was the only company to offer a fully audited report on its supply chains.

Following an April court ruling that altered the original SEC rule, companies are no longer required to state whether or not a product is “conflict free” (though the court may rehear this case in coming months). Yet Intel, echoing advocacy groups and regulators, says such designations are important.

“One of our takeaways is around transparency. Although not required to disclose the status of our products, we believe this transparency shows our commitment on this issue to our customers and stakeholders,” Intel told IPS in a statement.

“We encourage other companies to also share their product conclusions as we all work towards validating our products as DRC conflict free. Product conclusions provide a useful and transparent method to communicate the progress of our due diligence efforts.”

Already the presence of a single conflict-free product on the market has spurred competition, and a similar dynamic is expected to result from Monday’s public filings.

“We’re already seeing other companies racing to make the next conflict-free product, and we’re encouraging consumers to urge the largest aerospace and automotive companies to take part,” Lezhnev stated.

“Intel’s step is a good one, but there are companies out there that are far bigger. For instance, when is Boeing or GE going to make the next conflict-free product?”

(END)

National police arrive on a boat at Goma's port in DRC as U.N. peacekeepers look on. Credit: William Lloyd-George/IPS

By Carey L. Biron
WASHINGTON, Apr 15 2014 (IPS)

The United States’ second-highest court has upheld most of a landmark U.S. law requiring companies to ascertain and publicly disclose whether proceeds from minerals used to manufacture their products may be funding conflict in central Africa.

The ruling, released Monday, means that U.S.-listed companies will need to file their first such reports with federal regulators by the end of May. The statute, known as Section 1502 and covering what are referred to as “conflict minerals”, became law in 2010, but the details of its actual implementation have remained up in the air ever since.The ruling is “a major step backward for atrocity prevention in the Great Lakes region of Africa and corporate accountability in the United States.” -- Holly Dranginis

“There are very encouraging aspects of this ruling, and the bottom line is that the rule hasn’t been overturned and now companies will need to move forward,” Corinna Gilfillan, head of the Washington office of Global Witness, a watchdog group that supports Section 1502, told IPS.

“The heart of this statute is companies carrying out due diligence on their supply chains so they can figure out whether their minerals are coming from conflict areas. Due diligence is a process – first knowing the supply chain and then taking action to address any problems. This ruling has upheld the due diligence and reporting aspects.”

The U.S. Congress hoped Section 1502 would help quell the violence that has wracked Africa’s Great Lakes region, particularly in parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), for the past decade and a half. Findings by the United Nations, rights groups and others have warned that rebels in these areas have funded their operations in part by mining and selling any of five minerals that have become particularly sought after by the international electronics industry.

The rule has come under attack by U.S. business groups who say the requirements would be onerous and infringe on their constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, by forcing them to label their products “conflict free”. But agreeing with previous rulings, a three-judge bench on Monday dismissed most of these concerns.

The dismissal included business concerns that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had not adequately analysed costs and benefits of the regulation.

“The rule’s benefits would occur half-a-world away in the midst of an opaque conflict about which little reliable information exists, and concern a subject about which the [SEC] has no particular expertise,” the court stated in its decision.

“Even if one could estimate how many lives are saved or rapes prevented as a direct result of the final rule, doing so would be pointless because the costs of the rule – measured in dollars – would create an apples-to-bricks comparison.”

Compelled speech

Yet the court also offered a split decision in favour of the manufacturers on the free speech concern, allowing both proponents and critics of Section 1502 to claim victory.

U.S. law allows for certain “compelled” public disclosures, but generally only if those are recitations of straight fact. However, the court found the issue of conflict minerals to be far more complex.

“[I]t is far from clear that the description at issue – whether a product is ‘conflict free’ – is factual and nonideological. Products and minerals do not fight conflicts,” the court stated.

“The label ‘conflict free’ is a metaphor that conveys moral responsibility for the Congo war. It requires an issuer to tell consumers that its products are ethically tainted, even if they only indirectly finance armed groups … By compelling an issuer to confess blood on its hands, the statute interferes with that exercise of the freedom of speech.”

It is unclear whether the SEC will appeal this part of the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court (the agency says it’s reviewing the ruling). For now, the decision undermines a key strategy for groups hoping to use a labelling requirement to shame companies into compliance, though related information will still be publicly available.

The ruling is “a major step backward for atrocity prevention in the Great Lakes region of Africa and corporate accountability in the United States,” Holly Dranginis, a policy associate with the Enough Project, an advocacy group here, said Monday.

“The court’s proposal that a conflict-free determination is ideological is unfounded and undercuts the power of society’s growing awareness that global markets and security in fragile states are in fact linked.”

Meanwhile, a separate case before the same court could soon undermine the free speech finding. A smaller bench has already ruled in favour of requiring meat producers to include “country of origin” information on their products, and the case is now slated to be heard by the full court in mid-May.

A dissenting opinion in the conflict minerals ruling noted that the meat-labelling decision could have a significant impact on Monday’s ruling.

6,000 reports

The complexities of implementing Section 1502 remain highly problematic in central Africa, and some are warning that the law could soon collapse under its own weight. Yet others say the regulation is already having a noticeable impact, with the Enough Project suggesting that “over two-thirds of tin, tantalum and tungsten mines [are] now free of armed groups.”

Monday’s ruling should now allow the U.S. side of the statute’s implementation to proceed. This means that around 6,000 U.S. companies will need to file reports with the SEC, and post them to company websites, by the end of May.

The lawsuit against Section 1502 was brought by three of the United States’ largest business lobbies, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. In a joint statement sent to IPS, the three lauded the decision.

“[W]e are pleased with the D.C. Circuit’s decision … finding the statute and regulation are unconstitutional,” the groups stated. “We understand the seriousness of the humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and abhor the violence in that country, but this rule was not the appropriate way to address this problem.”

Yet other businesses are already complying with the spirit of Section 1502. Perhaps the most significant of these companies, Intel, is actually a member of NAM.

In January, the company pledged to remove all conflict minerals from its microprocessors. It says it now has no plans to change course.

“Regardless of this decision, we will continue to do our part to achieve conflict-free supply chains and to report publicly on these efforts,” Lisa Malloy, an Intel spokesperson, told IPS.

“The challenge of responsible minerals sourcing requires a comprehensive solution that involves government agencies in the U.S. and internationally, non-profit groups and industry. We urge all partners to continue the momentum towards a solution.”

The United States’ main foreign aid funder, USAID, released a mission statement Wednesday that includes new focus on ending extreme poverty while also promising to be more inclusive in incorporating civil society and other input in its decision-making.

“We partner to end extreme poverty and promote resilient, democratic societies while advancing our security and prosperity,” the agency’s new mission statement now reads, putting a greater emphasis on the link between extreme poverty and strong and democratic states.“Any process in which USAID opens its door to different perspectives is an important step and is one that should be applauded." -- Akshaya Kumar

A USAID spokesperson told IPS that the new mission statement “is about how we do what we do and it’s the core of who we are and what we have always done over [the past] 50 years.”

Civil society actors reacted to the new vision with cautious optimism.

“[USAID’s] stated commitment to engage with civil society and others in order to shape their thinking is very important,” Nora O’Connell, associate director of public policy and advocacy at Save the Children, an advocacy group here, told IPS.

Yet she also noted that it will be important for Western donors, while including different stakeholders, to also include local actors in the development effort.

“No donor or outside actor can go in and develop people. The country has to do it itself, and that is why governments in those states should also play a leadership role,” O’Connell said. “These can be from civil society or the private sector,” she said, as long as they are fully included in the development and reconstruction process.

The release of the new statement comes a day after top USAID officials and civil society leaders made a public commitment to fight extreme poverty in conflict zones as part of the post-2015 global development agenda, the successor to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Alex Thier, USAID’s assistant to the administrator, told a panel discussion here on Tuesday that the agency will undergo a major process of inclusion over the next year. This will see USAID increasingly welcoming input from civil society, think tanks and affected stakeholders in its efforts to implement the post-2015 global development agenda.

“We are truly on the precipice of a great moment: One year ago, President Obama called on us to stand together to achieve what I believe may be one of the most extraordinary goals that the United States or frankly any country has ever set out for itself, which is to eradicate extreme poverty from the planet,” Thier said.

“We at USAID are … rising to answer this call [and] as we focus on ending extreme poverty, we have to seek better ways to engage in fragile states where conflict, corruption and recurrent crises impede inclusive growth.”

USAID says it will need to “scale existing partnerships and develop new ones to draw in fresh perspectives and innovative thinking”. This expansion is part of a new effort that Thier said is “meant to provoke thought” by bringing in new perspectives and views.

The new perspectives are likely to come from universities, research institutes and non-governmental organisations, Thier said.

“We’re not just stating policy,” he noted.

Security focus

USAID’s efforts are part of broader global momentum to make the fight against extreme poverty in conflict zones a top priority. Last year, the Washington-based World Bank unveiled a new institutional vision that will likewise focus on ending extreme poverty.

In 2011, a grouping of conflict-affected countries known as the g7+ unveiled a new initiative, called the New Deal Compact, aimed at providing developing states with more of a say in the fight against poverty. With countries such as Afghanistan, the Central African Republic (CAR), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Haiti, Liberia, Somalia and others as members, the New Deal Compact aims to ensure that development aid focuses on peace and security ahead of other goals.

Also, in 2012, a United Nations report emphasised that eradicating extreme poverty would be a “crucial” aspect of any new post-MDG strategy, especially in conflict-affected areas.

According to USAID statistics, there are currently 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty, 70 percent of whom live in fragile states. USAID’s Thier says that by 2020 extreme poverty will be increasingly concentrated in fragile or failed states.

Some activists say that such an approach should constitute an important part of USAID’s new approach in countries experiencing conflict.

“Any process in which USAID opens its door to different perspectives is an important step and is one that should be applauded,” Akshaya Kumar, the Sudan and South Sudan analyst at Enough Project, an advocacy group here, told IPS. “But it’s also important to first diagnose the inter-linkages between different conflicts across different regions.”

Very often, Kumar said, conflicts are driven by economic factors – for instance, mining or trade. Once such linkages are detected, addressing root causes of conflict can become easier.

“If you look at the Horn of Africa, for instance, you can see that [warring factions] try to take advantage of goldmines in northern Darfur, or oil routes in South Sudan, undermining the ability of the local population to benefit from economic opportunities,” she said. “They then use that money to fuel war.”

Real efforts aimed at conflict resolution are perhaps the best strategy to begin thinking about how to fight poverty in conflict areas, she said, and the new political commitment by the U.S. government and USAID are positive signs.

“The next step is to show that these commitments will be put in practice. One important factor will be whether U.S. government bodies such as the State Department will actually facilitate these negotiations.”

Major manufacturing and business groups on Tuesday urged a court here to roll back a new U.S. regulation that would soon require major manufacturers to ensure that their global supply chains are free of minerals used to fund violence in the Great Lakes region of central Africa.

Former “blood diamonds” now provide employment in Sierra Leone. Credit: Tommy Trenchard/IPS

Yet the previous day, Intel, the major computer hardware manufacturer, announced the world’s first product formally dubbed free of such materials, stating that its microprocessors would no longer use “conflict minerals”. The announcement highlights trends that advocates of greater supply chain accountability say are already well underway, and which they suggest belie parts of the legal case against the rule.

“This provision has already catalysed reforms of the minerals trade in the Great Lakes region and has prompted both [U.S.] and Congolese companies to carry out supply chain due diligence and source minerals more responsibly,” Carly Oboth, an assistant policy advisor with Global Witness, a watchdog group, told IPS.

“According to consulting firm Claigan, in September 2013 2,946 companies were identified as having conflict minerals compliance programmes … Despite the appeal, many companies have already publically demonstrated the feasibility of the rule as they begin implementation to meet the May 31, 2014 reporting deadline.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the Business Roundtable, all major lobby groups, say the new rules impose an undue financial burden on companies and infringe on constitutional guarantees of free speech. The groups say they are supportive of the aims of the regulation, known as Section 1502, but want significant tweaks and the inclusion of certain exemptions.

But supporters counter that the Securities and Exchange Committee (SEC), the country’s lead regulator of publicly listed companies, has already thoroughly weighed these issues.

“Generally we’ve been supportive of the SEC’s position and think they did extensive analysis before adopting the conflict minerals rule,” Julie Murray, an attorney currently acting as counsel for Amnesty International, a rights group that has joined the lawsuit in support of Section 1502, told IPS.

“The SEC received some 13,000 letters urging it to promptly adopt this rule, and we think the commission did an exhaustive job of looking at the issues – taking into account the concerns that were raised by these groups, and trying to make the rule cheaper and easier to comply with.”

The appeal follows a detailed and strongly worded legal decision in July that upheld Section 1502, which was mandated by Congress in 2010 but only finalised last year. As the regulation currently stands, by June large companies will need to certify the sourcing of a handful of minerals sourced from central Africa, while smaller companies will have a longer timetable.

In the appeal, a central issue in the court’s decision-making will be the estimates the SEC used to figure out the financial burden that Section 1502 would place on companies, upwards of four billion dollars in initial compliance costs followed by annual costs of 200-600 million dollars. Yet Murray suggests that companies will be able to bring these costs down as they learn how to comply with the new regulations.

“In general we think that it’s important that companies learn about the source of the materials they’re using – most consumers say they should know whether the materials they’re purchasing are responsible for rape, torture and murder in the DRC,” Murray says. “At the same time, this rule isn’t just about human rights, but also serves an important role in informing investors and consumers.”

On Tuesday, however, two of the three judges hearing the case appeared sceptical of several aspects of Section 1502. They raised concerns about the precedent that the regulation would set, the SEC’s capacity to create such a rule, and even the scope of the underlying law.

Conflict-free microprocessors

In 2009, the U.N. Security Council formally recognised that revenues from minerals extraction were strengthening multiple armed groups operating in eastern DRC. The electronics industry has been one of the most significant users of the minerals that have been singled out for scrutiny, which include tin, gold, tungsten and others.

Supporters of Section 1502 say that many businesses are showing strengthening interest in doing the work necessary to comply with the rule, both for brand and financial reasons. In this, Intel is widely seen as having made a uniquely serious effort to clean up its global supply chain.

“Two years ago, I told several colleagues that we needed a hard goal, a commitment to reasonably conclude that the metals used in our microprocessors are conflict-free,” Intel’s CEO, Brian Krzanich, said Monday. “We felt an obligation to implement changes in our supply chain to ensure that our business and our products were not inadvertently funding human atrocities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

(An Intel executive sits on the National Association of Manufacturers’ board and is thus technically a party to the current appeal. While a company spokesperson declined to comment on the case, on its website Intel notes that its “positions do not always align 100% with those of the industry and trade organizations to which we belong.”)

Intel called the achievement a “critical milestone”, while Krzanich said the it was “just a start. We will continue our audits and resolve issues that are found.” He also urged the rest of the electronics industry to follow suit.

Others say industry leadership from other sectors is equally important.

“Now that Intel has released the first conflict-free product, it’s time for other companies to do the same,” Sasha Lezhnev, a senior policy analyst with the Enough Project, an advocacy group here, told IPS. “Particularly for gold – it’s important for jewellers to take action, while aerospace companies also need to step up. This problem won’t be solved by just one company.”

Lezhnev recently returned from the DRC, and notes that Section 1502, despite having yet to come fully into force, has already played a “backbone” role in defunding armed groups in the eastern part of the country. Such groups, he says, are also far less present today in the mining areas.

“Smuggled minerals are now about a third of the price of the [certified] minerals, so the new price this rule helped to spur is offering a strong incentive to build up a conflict-free trade,” he says. “You’re seeing the disarmament of many armed groups … and while that is not only because of the new regulation, this rule is offering a strong incentive for them to not restart again.”

Artisanal diamond miners at work in the alluvial diamond mines around the eastern town of Koidu, Sierra Leone. So-called ‘blood diamonds’ helped fund civil wars in Sierra Leone and Liberia, but now provide much-needed jobs as well as revenue for the government. Credit: Tommy Trenchard/IPS

By Carey L. Biron
WASHINGTON, Nov 12 2013 (IPS)

Countries in Africa’s Great Lakes region are moving too slowly on an international plan to certify the sourcing of “conflict minerals”, researchers here are warning, a failure that could threaten the entire certification process.

Recent international efforts have made important gains in cutting off militants in Rwanda, Congo and neighbouring countries from mining profits, while bolstering focus on ensuring clean supply chains, particularly in the global electronics industry. Today, for instance, far fewer rebel groups are present in mines in eastern Congo, according to new analysis by the Enough Project, a Washington advocacy group."The heart of this process is asking companies operating in the region to take responsibility for their supply chains." -- Annie Dunnebacke of Global Witness

Yet several key components of an international initiative aimed at systematising the global traceability of these “conflict minerals” have yet to be fully set up by the region’s governments. In a new report, the Enough Project suggests the certification process is today at a “crossroads”.

“Minerals can be a boon for peace in Congo and the region, not a conflict curse,” Sasha Lezhnev, a senior policy analyst with the Enough Project, said Monday.

“But if Rwanda, Congo and regional states do not take urgent steps to complete the mineral certification process in the next few months, multinational companies may stop purchasing many minerals from the region that cannot credibly be certified as conflict-free.”

One key deadline in this regard is now just months away. In May 2014, a landmark U.S. regulation will start requiring all U.S.-listed corporations to publicly report on the provenance of a list of minerals coming from the Great Lakes region.

And even as this U.S. provision – known as Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act, massive financial sector overhaul legislation passed in 2010 – has proven to be a major global impetus, the European Union is currently working on similar legislation.

“Over the past two years, we’ve certainly seen increased interest by companies to strengthen the level of minerals traceability. Our member companies have been putting a lot of resources into due diligence, carrying out a tremendous amount of tracing very far up the supply chain,” Julie Schindall, director of communications at the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC), an initiative that focuses on auditing smelters and refiners, told IPS.

“Yet it would be unfair to say that every company is doing this only due to action by regulators, though pressure from government, civil society and consumers is all vital. Companies also believe this matters, and some have been working on these issues far longer than they’ve been mandated.”

Safeguards lagging

The Enough Project’s warning comes just as a major conference is set to take place, later this week in Rwanda, among an international group of experts on responsible mineral supply chains.

Just ahead of the meeting, the certification process reached something of a milestone, with Rwanda last week issuing its first conflict-free certificate, known formally as an International Conference of the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR) Mineral Export Certificate. (Unlike the EICC, this certificate aims to audit operations at the level of extraction.)

The Congo government is reportedly preparing to do the same soon.

Yet there are concerns that these certificates have been prepared without mandated safeguards being in place. Enough Project researchers note that the process by which these initial certificates are being offered are “ad hoc”, with the governments focusing on mines that are particularly easy to certify.

“Interim steps will not work for all mines,” they write.

In the half-dozen years since the ICGLR Regional Initiative against the Exploitation of Natural Resources (RINR) was created, a rudimentary mine inspection system has been created and is partially functioning. Yet other important components of this framework – including a regional database to allow for the tracking of minerals from individual mines, disclosure requirements and critical auditing and monitoring systems – have yet to be finalised, in addition to more general deficiencies in capacity and public support.

While the governments of Rwanda and Congo have put in place interim measures to address some of these systemic gaps, these have been criticised for lacking transparency.

“Right now it’s a bit of a case of putting the cart before the horse – if you want a certification to be credible, then safeguards and monitoring have to be in place before you launch it,” Annie Dunnebacke, deputy campaigns director at Global Witness, a watchdog group that has been a key proponent of the ICGLR certification initiative, told IPS from Rwanda.

“At the same time, if this system launches before it’s ready, and at some point down the road is certifying actual conflict minerals, then we have a problem. The credibility of the system is the most important component.”

Yet Dunnebacke cautions advocates not to lose sight of the central priority: private sector due diligence. She says focus on this responsibility will ease concerns over the possibility of companies turning away from the region.

“The heart of this process is asking companies operating in the region to take responsibility for their supply chains, to identify and mitigate risks. Private sector players have to prove they’re carrying out due diligence,” she says.

“But companies can carry out due diligence, and can also source from the region, even if a fancy certification process is not up and running.”

Transformational development

Ahead of this week’s meetings in Rwanda, the Enough Project is now urging the United States, European Union, World Bank and electronics companies to strengthen technical assistance in several areas, in the hopes of expediting the formation of central components of the certification processes.

The World Bank has recently created a new project, the Africa Extractive Industry Trust Fund, through which it says it aims to work with African countries to provide advice on how to negotiate “fair and equitable contracts and deliver transformational development benefits.”

But the Washington-based development institution emphasises that certification remains a key requirement.

“Channelling revenues from Africa’s minerals into significantly improving people’s lives is an essential development investment in the continent’s future,” a bank spokesperson told IPS, “and so effective certification and traceability are vital steps in this process for countries, especially in the Great Lakes region.”

U.S. President Barack Obama's in Accra, Ghana in 2009. Credit: US Army Africa/CC by 2.0

By Cydney Hargis
WASHINGTON, Jun 24 2013 (IPS)

Advocacy groups here are urging U.S. President Barack Obama to focus on more than just economic development during his upcoming trip to Africa.

They are also hoping that the state visits will be able to turn the tide on years of U.S. engagement with Africa only through the lens of security and counter-terrorism.

Starting Wednesday, Obama will visit Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania on what will be his second trip to the continent as president. His advisors say he hopes to focus on increasing trade, investments and other economic opportunities.

“This shouldn’t be a light-hearted and easy trip,” Adotei Akwei, Africa advocacy director for Amnesty International, told IPS. “It shouldn’t just be about economics and investing, because there are some serious issues that need to be addressed.”

According to aides, Obama will also put significant emphasis on supporting growing democracies in each of the three countries, as well as on the African youth population."If the U.S. wants to be in step with the 21st century and the centuries to come...it needs to pay attention to Africa." -- Emira Woods

“Each of the countries that we’re visiting are strong democracies,” National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes said in a White House briefing conference call. “The president has made it a priority to support the consolidation of democratic institutions in Africa so that Africans are focused not just on democratic elections, but institutions like parliaments, independent judiciaries and strengthening of the rule of law.”

In addition to bilateral meetings with political leaders in the three countries, Obama will participate in events with private sector leaders. Development issues will play a role, particularly regarding food security.

“Food security has been one of our key development priorities,” Rhodes said, “in which we’ve brought together the international community as well as the private sector behind approaches that strengthen African capacity in developing agricultural sectors that better feed the populations.”

Obama has been criticised for paying relatively little attention to Africa during his presidency. His first and only trip to the continent lasted less than 24 hours.

“If the U.S. wants to be in step with the 21st century and the centuries to come,” Emira Woods, the co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington think tank, told IPS, “it needs to pay attention to Africa.”

Security focus

Further, for many humanitarian advocates, what little focus Obama has paid to Africa has been largely security related.

“I am concerned that in recent years, the degree to which there is a focus in Africa has been aimed at counterterrorism initiatives,” John Hutson, director of communications at the Enough Project, a Washington advocacy group, told IPS. “I hope this trip will create a sense of interest and actions that will help African development and thereby help the United States.”

The Institute for Policy Studies’ Woods concurred, “The U.S. has focused overwhelmingly on the security sector, at the expense of those other building blocks of a healthy society.”

Obama will not be visiting two of the continent’s most unstable countries, Somalia and Mali. Yet according to some observers, the instability in these parts of Africa is due in part to U.S. support of authoritarian regimes.

Independent policy analyst and activist Nii Akkuetteh applauded the Obama administration for not visiting countries that, at a panel discussion here Monday, he called “U.S.-friendly tyrants”.

“The criticism right now is, if you flood a country like Mali with arms and it goes wrong, we don’t think it’s right to turn your back on the problem,” said Akkuetteh. “It is in the U.S.’s best interest to help Mali rebuild since they were partners when Mali slipped into their problematic state.”

Meanwhile, others are pointing to climate change as a more pressing long-term security threat to Africa. On Tuesday, Obama is scheduled to unveil a major new U.S. policy push to combat climate change, but so far Washington has been a significant contributor to the inability of international negotiations to arrive at a comprehensive agreement on the issue.

“Clearly what we are calling for is for the Obama administration to look at the affects of its policies on climate change,” said Woods. According to Dev Kar, chief economist at the research and advocacy organisation Global Financial Integrity, scientists and security analysts are already forecasting a increase in the number of conflicts in Africa and beyond as a result of water shortage.

According to recently released World Bank data, such an uptick will likely be visible within decades.

Meanwhile, the cost of Obama’s trip, reportedly from 60 to 100 million dollars, has led to some furious criticism from within the United States, where austerity measures are continuing to upset long-running government programmes. But Amnesty International’s Akwei suggests this is not only a sideshow, but a problematic indication of the broader U.S. view of Africa.

“This criticism continues a sad trend of the perception of the continent, which is basically that it doesn’t matter and its irrelevant,” he said.

“In fact, it is relevant. It is a major front of the Pentagon and its work on terror, it is a major source of oil to this country, and it is a humanitarian focal point.”

A Congolese man transports charcoal on his bicycle outside Lubumbashi in the DRC. Credit: Miriam Mannak/IPS

By Joe Hitchon
WASHINGTON, May 17 2013 (IPS)

With casualties in the long-running conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) now surpassing every conflict since World War II, U.S. policymakers and advocates are stepping up campaigns to raise awareness and push legislation aimed at encouraging new negotiations, assisting in government reforms, and pressuring the neighbouring countries that have propped up the DRC’s government.

Some advocates say the situation today could be better than at any time in recent years for a durable peace process.

The U.S. House of Representatives is currently preparing to consider a bipartisan bill, unanimously passed by a subcommittee Wednesday, aimed at supporting international efforts to forge a peace deal in the long-running crisis in Congo.

The bill is an “important step forward in raising awareness within the U.S. Congress and among all Americans of this horrific and tragic crisis in the DRC,” Representative Karen Bass, one of the bill’s lead authors, told IPS.

“To date, this legislation has the support of nearly 60 Democrats and Republicans in the House and efforts are currently underway to introduce a similar piece of legislation in the Senate. It has also received significant support from the NGO community.”

Supporters say they expect that number to increase.

Recent months have also seen a strengthening of advocacy on the part of the Congolese diaspora here in Washington, as well as from the rest of the country and Canada. Legislators say this support has been key in helping the House bill gain the legislative backing it has.

One element of the new bill would respond to a longstanding key demand, urging the creation of a special envoy from the president to the DRC and the surrounding Great Lakes region.

“This legislation calls for such an envoy, and Secretary [John] Kerry, in testimony before both the House and the Senate, has indicated his plan to make an appointment,” Bass said.

“I am pleased that this effort is making progress and urge the secretary to move swiftly to make his decision and develop a comprehensive strategy that relies on diplomacy and engagement to address the complex set of issues that stand as barriers to peace and stability in the DRC and the region.”

Conflict-free consumerism

The war in Congo has been running for almost two decades, taking the lives of nearly six million people as several peace processes have failed. Militias engaged in the war have often used rape and sexual violence as a tool of repression and intimidation.

The economics of the mineral trade have also defined this struggle, with armed groups having been able to control mines and trading routes to prop up their actions.

“DRC is potentially one of the world’s wealthiest nations, but has been unable to unlock the potential of the riches above and below the soil due to the ongoing conflict there,” Sasha Lezhnev, a senior policy analyst at the Enough Project, a Washington advocacy group that published a new report on the DRC today, told IPS.

“However, a couple of different policy windows have created the space for a peace process that today has a better chance of success than anytime in the last decade.”

Lezhnev refers to the recent emergence of international pressure on Congo’s neighbouring states – particularly Rwanda – for supporting armed groups within eastern Congo. The World Bank has now withheld 135 million dollars from Rwanda for this reason, and there has likewise been pressure on the Congo to enact greater transparency reforms.

In addition, U.N. Special Envoy to Africa Mary Robinson has been working to establish a more comprehensive and inclusive peace process that addresses the core drivers of violence in the DRC. In February, she and 11 African heads of state established a diplomatic framework to identify reforms that would enable Rwanda, Congo and Uganda to cooperate on the extraction and export of minerals.

“This is a first step, but we think this provides a good roadmap for where we think this peace process should go,” Lezhnev said.

“What needs to happen now is Mary Robinson needs to lead regional negotiations between Uganda, Rwanda and the Congo on economic, refugee and security issues so that all these interests can be put on the table and can be worked out in a transparent and legitimate way.”

Also helping to break the link between the armed groups and the minerals that have in part funded them is new U.S. legislation, enacted over the past year as part of comprehensive financial legislation known as the Dodd-Frank Act. A section of this law targets so-called “conflict minerals”, and is reported to have brought about a 65-percent drop in profits for armed groups from tin, tungsten and tantalum this year.

“The Dodd-Frank Act has resulted in armed groups and their supporters finding it significantly more difficult to profit from an illicit trade, and so there is an opportunity to take advantage of these changing incentives and create structures for legitimate cooperation,” Lezhnev says.

“This shows there is a growing global consumer movement against conflict minerals, and conflict-free products have created new momentum to say that enough is enough when it comes to buying untraceable minerals and turning a blind eye.”

Temporary window

A further sign of the weakening of the armed groups is the sight of one of the chief Rwandan warlords, Bosco “The Terminator” Ntaganda, sitting in The Hague at the International Criminal Court (ICC) after he turned himself in to law enforcement in Rwanda in March. Analysts say this turn of events has weakened his militia, known as the M23, and increased opportunities for peace.

Meanwhile, countries around the world have increasingly taken notice of the trade and investment opportunities throughout Africa, resulting in greater levels of engagement. However, groups like the Enough Project warn this policy window will not remain open indefinitely.

“We call on the Obama administration to deploy a high-level envoy and to work with Mary Robinson,” Lezhnev said.

“The administration needs to help shape this process, to incentivise the economic cooperation between the countries of the region by setting up a responsible investment initiative for working with the tech companies, metals companies and responsible investors to identify gaps and opportunities for investing in a conflict-free environment.”

Next week, World Bank President Jim Kim and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon are slated to travel to Congo and the region.