A publication by Global Witness from 16th April titled “New investigations suggests EU trader Traxys buys conflict minerals from DRC” suggests that large volumes of coltan connected to the conflict in Eastern DRC have entered mineral supply chains via local exporters in Rwanda. We regret that ITSCI was not approached for inputs on allegations that relate to our areas of operations and which we believe would have been critical to enable a more informed investigation. As part of our commitment to enhance transparency, promote constructive dialogue, improve due diligence of companies sourcing from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas (CAHRA) and advance responsible mineral supply chains in CAHRA, we provide the below comments on this Global Witness publication, including clarifications on inaccuracies, and ITSCI’s relevant pre-existing actions.
ITSCI agrees and has previously reported that risks of cross-border fraud have increased since the advance of M23, the deterioration in security, and the suspension of activities by ITSCI and state mining services in key mining areas in Eastern DRC. In the face of these risks, ITSCI continues to press for thorough due diligence from companies sourcing from the Great Lakes Region (GLR). ITSCI redoubled its good faith efforts to support stakeholders to address these risks through our OECD-aligned systems and in accordance with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance.
Where necessary and appropriate, ITSCI has taken actions to mitigate risks. Since the beginning of this year, and prior to the Global Witness publication, ITSCI opened incidents on several ITSCI exporters. These actions have led to the suspension, on 16th March and 16th April respectively, of two Rwandan exporter members from the ITSCI Programme due to insufficient evidence of implementation of due diligence: African Panther Resources Ltd. and Sunrise Metal Company Ltd. In accordance with our normal processes, this action was taken with reference to recent and factual information and was entirely unconnected to Global Witness investigations of which ITSCI was not aware.
Alex Kopp, senior campaigner, states that the investigation ‘strongly suggests that conflict coltan from DRC and smuggled to Rwanda has entered the EU’ and the publication makes various recommendations on that basis. This appears to arise from a mistaken assumption that traders physically import minerals to their own company locations rather than deliver minerals to smelters globally. Our records do not suggest that coltan exported from Rwanda through the ITSCI Programme was delivered into the EU in recent months. We cannot comment on the source or destination of non-ITSCI minerals exported from, or smelted in, Rwanda by non-ITSCI actors or facilitated by other systems.
The Global Witness publication alleges certain points that may benefit from clarification;
- Our records do not show that coltan exports by Rwandan exporter African Panther Resources in 2024 by far exceed the total combined volumes of exports by that exporter in the last four years as alleged by Global Witness. ITSCI-related coltan exports by that exporter in 2024 are around half that of the last four years combined.
- Global Witness have selected 2021 and 2023 export data which tends to over-emphasise increases in total Rwandan exports of coltan. Mining activities in 2021 remained impacted by COVID-19 and are not a useful base reference. ITSCI provisional export records show a 12% increase in coltan exports in 2024 compared to 2023, which is the lowest increase in recent years and within normal variations.
- Reference to the UN Group of Experts’ statement[1] that 120 tonnes per month of tantalum is smuggled by M23 from Masisi to Rwanda has not been assessed for plausibility. Such an increase would equate to 1,440 tonnes per year. This is drastically higher than the above increase observed in ITSCI related tantalum concentrate export figures in Rwanda in 2024.
- We note that ITSCI data relates only to our own operations and differs from Rwandan official data, or from general trade data which can include non-ITSCI trade. We recently explained how trade data, even based on customs declarations as used by Global Witness, may be inaccurate or misleading.[2]
Global Witness has, unfortunately, tended to refer to, and rely on, many of its own past allegations of 2022 with no acknowledgment of ITSCI’s response in right-of-reply. Other allegations refer to substantially out-dated documents of at least 10 years old, and even as far back as 2008 before the Dodd Frank Act or the OECD Guidance was in existence. Use of such information is not aligned with recommendations in the OECD Guidance to seek first-hand up to date, on-the-ground information to assess risk effectively[3]. We regret Global Witness’ continued attempt to question the general approach of due diligence, including the ongoing, pro-active and reactive efforts by OECD-aligned facilitation initiatives like ITSCI.
We again call on Global Witness for constructive engagement and dialogue with all relevant parties, including relevant governments, to support risk management. We believe Global Witness should share ITSCI’s goal of responsible sourcing of minerals and transparent risk reporting to support companies’ due diligence responsibilities, and such engagement would benefit both organisations’ visions. We also agree with the key recommendations from Global Witness that companies sourcing minerals from the GLR– or any CAHRA – should carry out due diligence according to the recommendations of the OECD Guidance. We further agree that parties involved in the current conflict should continue to seek a diplomatic resolution via the established peace processes.
We welcome the opportunity to comment or clarify any misunderstandings about the role and scope of the ITSCI Programme, as well as a deeper understanding of the situation and local context – drawing on our 15 years of experience working in the region, which we believe can be of value to anyone seeking to report on or assess the situation.
-END-
Despite the current situation, mining activities and tagging by state mining services continue in many areas of the DRC, including in Haut-Katanga, Haut-Lomami, Lualaba, Maniema, South Kivu, Tanganyika and Tshopo Province. Activities also continue in Burundi and Rwanda. Working in conflict-affected and high-risk areas carries specific risks. A blanket general de-risking (or ‘cut-and-run’) approach contradicts the recommendations of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance, unfairly stigmatises the ASM sector and harms those who depend on mining for their livelihoods. A collaborative approach is essential to managing these risks and promoting responsible mining practices to continue to support local communities.
Anyone in the region can provide evidence or information on risks directly or via our whistleblowing mechanism. ITSCI whistleblowing procedure and contacts are available online www.itsci.org/contact/. The confidential ITSCI whistleblowing address is [email protected].
Contact
Contact us at [email protected]
For media enquiries, contact [email protected]
[1] UN GOE mid-term 2024 report, December 2024.
[2] For instance, there is no individual trade code only for tantalum ores and concentrates; trade in tantalum ores and concentrates are normally only reported aggregated with niobium, vanadium and sometimes zirconium ores and concentrates. This increases difficulty in use of trade data for tantalum. See more notes here, Annex 1.
[3] OECD 3T Supplement Step 2B and the detailed Appendix: Guiding Note for Upstream Company Risk Assessments.