CIBJO’s recently established European Committee traveled to Brussels on June 28, where it met with representatives of the European Commission. Among the topics on the agenda was the EU initiative to control the import of precious mineral imports from conflict areas.
On March 27 the European Commission had launched what it referred to as a “public consultation,” the aim of which of was get interested parties’ views on a potential initiative for responsible sourcing of minerals coming from conflict zones and high-risk areas. These the EC had qualified as “war zones, post-war zones, and areas vulnerable to political instability or civil unrest.”
In issuing invitations for its consultation, the commission stated that it wanted to deepen the EC’s understanding of issues such as the sourcing and security of rough minerals, supply chain transparency and good governance, especially in developing countries affected by conflict.
The EU initiative, a commission representative explained, would builds on the OECD due diligence guidance for responsible supply chains, which covers minerals such as tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold.
The initiative also may complement the conflict minerals due diligence regime that was introduced recently in the United States as part of the Dodd-Frank Act, and is being instituted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). There, U.S. companies are required to disclose their use of minerals that originate in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or an adjoining country.
The EC consultation requested comment on specific areas, including the minerals that should be covered; whether the geographical scope of any action should be global, region-specific, or country-specific; whether specific segments in the minerals’ supply chain should be targeted; whether some companies should be exempted due to size; and whether an EU initiative would motivate other major economies to adopt similar initiatives.
 |
|
Participants at the CIBJO EU Committee meeting at the European Commission (from left): Joris Heeren, the leader of the Sanctions Team in the EC’s Service for Foreign Policy Instruments; Marisa Ameli, Italy; Michael Rawlinson, UK; Gaetano Cavalieri, CIBJO President; Simon Rainer, UK; James Riley, UK; Tung-Lai Margue, head of the EC’s Service for Foreign Policy Instruments; Karina Ratzlaff, Germany; Thilo Brückner, Germany; and Christine Boquet, France. |
CIBJO’s EU Committee was established in May at the organisation’s annual congress, with the express purpose of liaising with the European Union. It represents the interests of the jewellery sector from 12 countries, within or closely connected to the European Union.
Led by Thilo Brückner of Germany, the group in Brussels included Christine Boquet, of France; Michael Allchin, Simon Rainer, Michael Rawlinson and James Riley of the United Kingdom; Giuseppe Aquilino, Steven Tranquilli and Marisa Ameli, of Italy; and Karina Ratzlaff of Germany. They were joined in Brussels by CIBJO President Gaetano Cavalieri, who also chairs the EU Committee.
In Brussels the CIBJO delegates with a team from the European Commission led by Tung-Lai Margue, the head of the body’s Service for Foreign Policy Instruments, and Joris Heeren, the leader of the Sanctions Team in the EC’s Service for Foreign Policy Instruments.
During the meeting the CIBJO EU Committee called on the European Commission to acknowledge and accept the various voluntary initiatives and ethical standards developed and led by the jewellery and precious metals sectors.
The competitiveness of the European jewellery sector must be protected, the CIBJO delegates stressed, and this may not be possible if additional certification procedures are imposed without any expected benefit.
The CIBJO EU Committee suggested that the European Commission considers the unintended consequences of the Dodd Frank Act from the United States, which has resulted in many companies selecting to source gold outside of Africa’s Great Lakes Region, in order to avoid having to deal with the stringent provenance requirements. The CIBJO members described this as a “de facto embargo,” and they said that the primary victims have been legitimate gold producers and members of the local populations, who have seen employment and economic opportunities in the region tumble.
Above all, it was stressed, the fight against the illegal financing of conflicts would never be successful without a diplomatic approach and a political solution.