Proposition 54K1226

Proposition de résolution relative aux "minerais des conflits".

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sarah Claerhout, Els Van Hoof

Submission date

July 2, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

mining of ore mining product resolution of parliament illicit trade

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

PP

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 22, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Peter Luykx, rapporteur, refers to the report.

The story of this resolution is comparable to that of a well-known insecticide climbing bird, the cocoon!

This bird has the strange mania of laying its eggs in the nest of others, a little like when the PS, through me, asks as a priority to put on the agenda of a resolution allowing for mandatory traceability of conflict minerals and that the majority, like a cock, use to deposit a new text that has the appearance of the Socialist resolution but that, in fact, proposes above all to allow companies that make maximum profits on the back of human rights, to continue their business.

The story of this resolution also resembles a movie story, that of "Flying over a Cuckoo's Nest" with guest stars representatives of the MR group who, apparently, have some personality problems, adopting at the level of the European Parliament courageous positions that are unfortunately not assumed in the Federal Parliament. This is the story of the son who killed his father.

Mrs. Grovonius, you clearly have literary abilities. That is very beautiful. Congratulations to.

We have already talked in the committee extensively about your interpretation of the chronology. The fact that there are still groups involved with the matter, deepening into it and wanting to do something with it, has nothing to do with what you describe. I think this is a very strange interpretation. It is also a very important matter. It is therefore very important that this interest of other groups exists.

This was so important, Mrs. Claerhout, that you waited for the end of the session to submit a text. It was so important to you that you didn’t write it until a few days ago. That’s why it was so important to you. Is that really that? I did not understand very well.

I have no worries, you are right, I have good editorial skills and no difficulty with that. In any case, they are significantly better than yours, by reading the text you submitted.

Why is it so important today that Parliament asks the government to follow a line on conflict minerals? We have had a long debate in the committee and no one in this assembly is supposed to ignore the fact only following the amendment of Mr. Louis Michel initiates a dialogue between the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. What we are doing here is trying to refine, to push our government, a member of the Council, to follow Mr. Trump’s line. Michael the Father. In fact, we try to make the agreement between father and son. Let us hope that the Holy Spirit works, Madame Claerhout!

When I see that the MR has not even co-signed Mrs. Claerhout’s proposal, I have some doubts about it, Mr. Hellings. But we will come back to all this later.

I will now talk a little about the resolution that the PS submitted. The text of the PS started from a fairly simple but terrible finding: in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mr Flahaux, the illegal trade of minerals by rebel armed groups has contributed strongly, for more than fifteen years, to intensify and prolong conflicts and the suffering of local populations.

On a global scale, many other areas are affected by this juicy trade, which is all the more profitable as international demand continues to grow with our intensive use of new technologies (smartphones and other laptops).

The European Union represents no less than 25% of the world market for imports of conflict minerals, namely the "3T" (stain, tungsten and coltan), but also 15% of gold, which represents a trade volume of no less than 28.5 billion euros. Given the importance of this market, the European Union must have a real leverage in the fight against these conflict minerals. Unfortunately, for many years, the European Union, under pressure, in particular from the EPP and ALDE, has delayed the implementation of measures aimed at responsible sourcing of raw materials.

Following the adoption by the United States of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010 and at the request of the European Parliament, the European Commission prepared a proposal for a regulation in March 2014. This regulation proposal by the Belgian Liberal Commissioner at the time was aimed at ensuring a responsible supply of minerals by European companies when they feed in risk areas. However, the Commission then opted for a voluntary self-certification scheme and proposed to limit the scope of the legislation to only 450 importing companies. My group and my colleague Marie Arena had already strongly denounced this device at the time. In fact, these elements made the European Commission clearly missing its objective. Knowing that the OECD recommendations on this matter have been in place since 2010 and that very few companies have taken inspiration from them, we know that there is no hope of changing the situation on the basis of a voluntary measure of the sector, except for those who have fallen into the angelism.

For my group, given the magnitude of the problems hidden behind these minerals, one cannot be content with angelism or half measure. Responsibility and ethics should not be a choice but an obligation for the entire chain.

Mrs Grovonius, you, like me, attended the hearings in our committee on this issue. I found it very striking then that the voluntary controls that companies can carry out is apparently a great success, at least for the European companies. We have been able to listen, among other things, to Mr. Tytgat of Umicore, who himself had developed a very sophisticated system that goes far beyond other rules that one wants to impose. They voluntarily impose this system on themselves. This can be called “no success”.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Luykx, I attended the hearings but, apparently, we did not hear the same thing.

I understood that through this self-certification system, a very small percentage of trade is affected by these ethical measures. Only 3% of the trade is affected. If you consider that doing ethics with 3% of this fruitful market is enough, you are free to believe it.

At the PS, we are a little bit ahead of these steps. We want to go much further, which is impossible without having a mandatory settlement from the beginning to the end of the chain.

Mrs. Grovonius, do you not deny that some companies are dealing with this in a proper manner on a purely voluntary basis? That is my point. You exclude that and say that it had no effect at all. We were both there and heard the same thing. Many questions have been asked: will a compulsory audit have an effect, can it run efficiently and can it be organized properly? This was the subject of the debate. The only real results that exist today are exactly those results that are achieved by companies that implement this system on a voluntary basis.

I would like to refer to those hearings. It was really emphasized that a lot of initiatives have already been taken, including from the successful companies. Not only the representative of Umicore stressed that. The representative of the NGOs also stressed that these initiatives have already taken a very long way. They were asked to incorporate them. That you now completely abolish it, I really think witnesses a strange view of those initiative-taking companies.

Mr. Luykx, we are not here just to hear and congratulate companies that do a good job. Some of them have already put in place mechanisms, and we look forward to this, to prevent certain materials that have been extracted under awful conditions from being marketed. Our role is not to congratulate these people, but to install, as political leaders, a device that is the most plausible, the most effective and the most extensive possible, while taking into account certain economic constraints. Those who don’t do it today will do it from now on.

MEPs from several Belgian political groups – in any case, from all French-speaking parties, since I did not follow the debate on the Dutch-speaking side as precisely – of the European Parliament went in this direction by a binding and systematic procedure. We were extremely surprised by the majority’s retreat in this regard.

Our role is therefore to develop devices that are credible and not just to welcome the actors who are already developing them.

Mr Dallemagne, that is true. You are right. We are not just here to congratulate.

However, my point was the following. I wanted to nuance Mrs. Grovonius’s position. We should not throw the child away with the bath water. Of course, we must look for further steps. However, we should not exclude voluntary control by dismissing it as a system that would not work. That point I wanted to make.

I would like to add one point in a timely manner. It seems to me all the more important to implement a mechanism that is mandatory for all undertakings as it will also protect from all forms of unfair competition those who have entered, voluntarily, in this process.

I don’t see where the difficulty lies, much less if you highlight the fact that some of our companies are already engaged in a voluntary process of this type. To what extent does this pose the least difficulty? In fact, we are only protecting them more. Furthermore, we ensure that all companies are on the same foot and subject to the same types of obligations.

I do not think that the proposal of colleague Claerhout excludes a mandatory control. Where do you read that?

I will not repeat the entire resolution, nor what the speakers said during the hearings, but we heard then that we need to think very well so that any regulation would lead to results, how we will implement it, not only in Europe, but also on the ground. The industry itself wants to participate in this. This is a ⁇ complex matter, in which we have put a lot of questions and set conditions.

Mr Luykx, allow me to refer to request no. 3 of the draft resolution. There is a voluntary mechanism. I do not need to go further to explain how much this makes the whole device useless since, by doing so, it does not impose any obligation on all companies.

As for the setting on the ground, I totally agree with you. But be reassured, the text deposited by the PS does not only concern the DRC, but also the neighboring countries, in order to avoid a destabilization of one country in relation to another. It also provides for accompanying measures.

Referring to the hearings we have had, the text clearly responds to the demands of the NGO sector, namely a mandatory mechanism with accompanying measures. We probably did not attend the same auditions.

I will return to the text of the Socialist Party which you do not seem to have known. It is important to draw attention to the obligation of transparency and due diligence throughout the mineral supply chain for all undertakings operating in the Union. It is at this level that we want to avoid distortions in terms of competition between different companies in order to ensure that the measure proposed at European level, the only consistent level here, can really have an impact on the ground. In fact, behind this issue lies that of social traceability and information of European consumers. They need to know what the products they buy contain. In this context, only mandatory reasonable diligence – I insist on this term – throughout the supply chain will truly allow consumers to know whether the products they buy come from an ethical and responsible chain or not.

It is in order to face these challenges and in opposition to the first mould of the commission that we have drawn up our text by formulating four clear and maximistic demands, but which remain realistic. The first concerns the establishment of a mandatory reasonable diligence system from the beginning of the supply chain to the end of the supply chain for conflict minerals. The second aim is to ensure that this obligation is not limited to European companies, but to all companies that place these minerals or products containing these minerals in Europe and that, beyond the importers.

The third request consists in ensuring that the Regulation reinserts the definition of a conflict zone, in accordance with the definition used by the OECD in order to ensure global coherence.

Finally, advocate for a mechanism whose scope can take into account in the future that if a new natural resource fuels a conflict, it can also be covered by the European Regulation.

These four requests fully fit into the meaning of the amendment of Mr. by Louis Michel. This amendment amends the proposal for a regulation adopted by the European Parliament on 20 May 2015 to impose on all companies, throughout the supply chain, an obligation to practice reasonable diligence and an obligation to inform about their practices of reasonable diligence for responsible supply.

As a result of this vote in the European Parliament, which was confirmed at the level of the trilogue, approximately 800,000 European companies could be imposed a traceability obligation instead of the 450,000 currently based on the voluntary arrangement. From 450 to 800,000, we clearly see the scope of a mandatory device.

Importers of minerals, foundries and refineries, but also manufacturers of manufactured products should now ensure that the minerals they use are not used to finance conflicts.

This surprise vote conducted by my colleagues Marie Arena and Louis Michel in the European Parliament helped to significantly alter the initial proposal of the INTA Commission, which was aimed at the establishment of a voluntary arrangement. It also goes well beyond the initial proposal on the scope of the obligation of responsible supply, which initially targeted only European casting and refining plants.

The regulation voted in the European Parliament is historic because it combines respect for human rights with the profit of companies. In this context, Europe could become a pioneer in economic ethics.

Following this vote, it was up to us, as Belgian parliamentarians, to stand up to this historic position and, to do so, to give a very clear and unambiguous mandate to our prime minister for the next European Council – prime minister who, I must recall, is of the same political colour as the author of the famous amendment.

That’s why it was essential that a strong resolution, such as ours – I want here to thank MM. From Germany, Van der Maelen and Hellings for their support – be adopted by our assembly to be able to face the European Council, facing the most right-wing forces who only dream of one thing, a return back from this position of the European Parliament.

It was in this context that I updated my text and that the majority requested the organization of hearings in order to amend the text on which, hand on heart, isn’t it Mr. Miller, she had agreed to work. These hearings took place. Here, my dear colleagues, are some excerpts from these outside the NGOs who, without ambiguity, supported the text of the opposition. Louis Michel, a member of the European Parliament, said "that it was better to provide for precise obligations than to rely on the goodwill of companies." Michel added: "I confirm that the resolutions proposals under discussion perfectly fit into the reflection of the supporters of the proposal for a European regulation, as adopted on 20 May 2015", while inviting the Belgian Parliament to join in this ambitious approach. by Mr. Michel, as part of this brilliant hearing, also addressed the issue of sanctions. Also Mr. Michel indicated that the socialist proposal, with a few adjustments, fit into the position defended by him and Marie Arena at the European level.

Strong with these hearings and positive opinions on this socialist text, we have therefore returned to the committee. And there, to my greatest surprise and I would even say to my greatest disappointment, the majority denied his word and organized his hold-up. Indeed, the CD&V had in the meantime and in the last minute, proof that it was a real priority, made taking a text in consideration in plenary session. It was a similar text on the title but ⁇ not on the content. Nevertheless, it is on that that the majority decided to work in commission, rejecting that of the PS group with a back of the hand.

The press release of the MR following the vote on the Michel amendment in the European Parliament was however clear: "The universal consciousness has triumphed over sordid affairism," one could read. Here, my dear colleagues, Mr. Miller, it was rather the exacerbated conservatism that overtook Belgium’s ambitious position in the fight against conflict minerals. Instead, judge on the basis of a few chosen tracks from this magnificent CD&V resolution. Considering the r. I don’t read it; you’ll find it in the text.

Personally and on behalf of my group, I think it is crazy to try not to disrupt a market that exploits populations and feeds conflict zones! Honestly, to say that, you shouldn’t get bored writing a text!

Considering S. Sorry, but for my part, I can’t admit that “costs related to responsible supply” are a valid reason not to regulate. On the contrary! Being ethical has a cost, it must be assumed! In fact, a worker over 18 years of age ⁇ ly costs more than a boy who works in black. But if I am your text and your proposal, we should, in this case, still accept child labour in the textile industry, for fear that these companies will relocate and that will cost us money!

Considering the U. New false excuses for not disrupting this shameful trade: companies will relocate; there will be an additional precariation of local populations; the conflict risks moving ... Let’s admit! But then what are your answers? Do nothing to do!

On the contrary, the PS anticipated and proposed a resolution concerning the DRC and its nine neighboring countries. It proposes a resolution with an obligation for all companies, even non-European ones, to avoid this unfair competition. Then, it proposes an accompanying process in the implementation of the device. The PS assures that, in the context of the current total dependence on these minerals, companies do not have a credible alternative and will therefore submit to these new obligations. There is no reason to make concessions to human rights.

Let’s continue the flowering! Let us examine your requests!

Request 1: advocate for a binding regulation but based on the activities of the companies, their size, their place in the supply chain. Maybe you should open your eyes. This means nothing!

Application 2: exclude the diamond sector, taking into account the importance and ...

Mr. Speaker, I want to intervene briefly.

Mrs Grovonius, the formulation you just cited as there would be a difference in the chain and that there is a different way of working depending on the size of the company and its place in the chain, is again a point that has been regularly addressed during the hearings. Everyone agrees that one cannot work on one uniform structure for the whole chain and that one must make a distinction in it.

Now that I am speaking, I take the opportunity to say that I am shocked by the way you present things here. You are not intellectually honest. You have now repeated several times that we propose to do nothing, while very clearly it is suggested to swallow a certain obligation.

We ask that this be done in a realistic way. Experts have shown us that there is a lot of difference in that chain. The issues must therefore be addressed in a different way.

I appreciate your concern. I see that you are really concerned about the matter. I do not want to debate this. You should pay attention to how you represent your opponent’s position. You make some unfair points in this area.

Mrs Claerhout, I cannot present your text in a different way because, unfortunately, it does not provide for an obligatory process from the beginning to the end of the chain and that is what we reproach him. It is true, you provide for distinctions based on the size of the companies but not in a mandatory process. For some, the process remains on a voluntary basis. I’m sorry or I don’t know how to read, but your request number 3 clearly provides that for downstream companies, we are in a voluntary approach. From the moment you make a distinction of this type, it becomes impossible to have a process that will work.

To return to your request No. 2, which provides for the exclusion of the diamond sector given the importance and good results of the Kimberley Process, I totally agree with you, there is already a device. But I’m still confused and wondering how much you’re confused with this sector because you feel compelled to talk about it in a text that, in the end, does not concern him at all. But I understand that this sector needs to be reassured constantly.

Mr. Grovonius, we have already had this discussion in the committee. We do not want to undermine the already existing Kimberley Process by laying another process over it. That would not be good. You have approved the resolution in the House to strengthen the Kimberley Process. That is the reason. You may carry out the intention processes you want, but that is really not credible.

Request No. 3, we’ve already talked about it, but it’s the worst because it’s the one that makes your resolution definitely useless.

I thought to wait for my passage after you, dear Madame Grovonius, to intervene but I find that, as it is said in good Belgian, too is te veel. I mean by this that here we are in a substantial debate on an extremely important topic and where, beyond this problem of minerals, there is that of war and also that which holds me to heart because it is impure, it is the use of rape for military purposes throughout this region. This is extremely important and we are also discussing it in other committees. This is a topic that should bring us together. You can obviously understand that we are not always on the same line at the same time but the goal, however, is to try to find points of understanding.

Mr. Flahaux, your problem is that you are not even on the same line with yourself!

I have not interrupted you, dear Mrs. Grovonius.

I don’t want to be on the same line.

Do you believe in democracy? In this case, the first thing, Mrs. Grovonius, is to listen to the other person who is speaking. When you understand this, you will be a bit democratic. In the meantime, I think there are lessons you need to take. I know that you are not accustomed to this, that in some regions, outside the party, there is no dialogue.

And so we talked about the substance before the arguments, right?

I will discuss the problem of the substance of course in my speech on behalf of my group. My question is simply about the form and the tone. You are always in the role of a teacher. I do not like that. I think you must respect the fact that everyone can have their share of truth and that it is important to know how to listen to the other and to be able to accept that one does not necessarily have the truth revealed alone. You are not an Ayatollah. Ecologists were once called the Chlorophyll Ayatollahs. I would not want you to be called one day the Ayatolless of democracy. thank you .

Mr. Flahaux, you are right: in fact, we are talking here about the geopolitical problems of the Great Lakes region, East Congo, where conflict minerals are exploited illegally, extracted by miners – often children – and then sold to processing companies in Rwanda.

It is clear that the conflict minerals now feed the wars in eastern Congo and the wars between Rwanda, or allied militias, and the Congolese army. The rape, of which you talked, which is used as a weapon of war finds its origin in this geopolitical fact that are the conflict minerals.

The cause of these horrors is the subject of this discussion. Against this, we can take European regulatory provisions that will be discussed in the trilogy where the Council, therefore the Belgian government – the son Michel – will have to defend a position. This is the meaning of the resolution we are voting for. The challenge is that this resolution is strong so that the government defends a strong position. You will not be able to fight rape with warm water. Because if we are the chlorophyll ayatollahs, you are the warm water ayatollahs!

I return to the bottom line, Mrs. Claerhout’s text and her request No. 3, which is ⁇ the worst because she makes this text completely unnecessary as she envisages a voluntary approach for downstream companies.

This is the opposite of the position defended by Mr. Mr. President, and congratulations to you, dear colleagues. I would like to know what coherence is in all this and how, as an elected member of the MR, you can accept such a request.

However, Mr. Flahaux, my group offered you in commission a chance to avoid adopting such a text. We have submitted the amendment to the committee. Louis Michel of the European Parliament to show you how much we seek consensus.

I hope, Mr. Flahaux, that unlike what happened in the committee, you will not vote against this amendment of your own MEP, which we have again put in plenary. There will be a nominative vote on it.

To conclude, I would say that Mrs Claerhout’s resolution on conflict minerals – at this point she is the only one who has signed it – seeks above all to enable the continuation of business as usual.

In particular, ethics and social and environmental standards should not harm trade! We should not prevent our smartphones and other products from being the result of human suffering! It is not a coincidence that, in Europe, the EPP has done everything to block the adoption of such a regulation.

Of course, Mrs. Claerhout, Mr. Miller and Mr. Flahaux, you could not say it that way. You have applied some paint to give you a good conscience but you do not need to scratch long to discover all the cynicism of the approach and the text that is submitted to us today.

It is ⁇ not the amendments you submitted and that were adopted in the committee that improve this text. It has nothing to do with the amendments. Michael Father, they are even the opposite.

This resolution proposal is completely empty and meaningless. It constitutes an imposture, a real frontal attack against all those who have fought for the adoption of a courageous regulation at European level.

Above all, it illustrates how some in this majority are able to deny their word and make sure that in the final, even on issues as important as respect for social norms, human rights and workers, no consensus can be found, but not because of us, because of you!

I therefore call on my colleagues from the MR to reassemble and adopt the amendment that I re-submitted in the plenary session, co-signed by my colleagues sp.a, cdH and Ecolo-Groen and which takes back Mr. Green’s amendment. by Louis Michel.

If the European Union really wants to become a major diplomatic actor, it must more than ever establish a true coherence between its action for peace and its willingness to fight against the commercial and industrial activities that finance these conflicts. Only under this condition and with this coherence will we be able to weigh in this struggle against conflict minerals that especially affects the DRC, a major country in terms of our diplomacy and development cooperation.

With the text of the majority, our Prime Minister will have one of the weakest mandates to not say nullity within the Council. For all these reasons, my group will vote against the text of the majority and I wish you good courage for the future with your schizophrenia and the positions of the father and son of the family Michel.

You have an amendment on your banks and you have a last chance to catch up by adopting it.

Mr. Speaker, in some way I should thank my colleague, Mrs. Grovonius.

So do it!

Realism is much more understandable and acceptable than anything excessive.

I just heard words like “schizophrenia.” It is very difficult to use such terms. I didn’t know you were a doctor, but I found out tonight. Dr. Grovonius, since you have the gifts of a psychiatrist and a psychologist, I’m a little surprised. You make me think of the classical mentality in some areas of Hainaut, which I know well: “no socialist, no bread.” Here, apart from you, there is no truth. I cannot accept it.

The [...]

I will talk about Louis Michel soon, be calm. Since you have become “Michelians”, I am delighted!

The father, but not the son.

After the Father, you will come to the Son and finally to the Holy Spirit. In politics, Karine, you should never say never. Maybe one day you will have in your majority a prime minister who will be called Charles Michel.

I would like to return to the essence of our debate, namely the conflict minerals. As I briefly mentioned earlier, this question is extremely heavy. It is important to break any link between mineral trade and conflict, the source of multiple executions and inhumane collateral damage, which suffers thousands of men and, above all, women and children in countries such as the DRC – but not only.

In view of this dramatic situation, MR has always prioritized efficiency and responsibility. The text on which you are invited to vote advocates for a mandatory regulation for the entire supply chain of steel, tantal, tungsten, gold and their derived metals, depending on the business of the companies, their size and their place in the chain, and for an obligation to inform downstream companies.

It also emphasizes a number of important elements related to the implementation of the Regulation, in particular the need for close coordination between Member States in order to maximize transparency and avoid rivalry between export procedures. It is only under this condition that it is possible to ensure that our luxury to us, Westerners, (smartphones, tablets, laptops, automotive industry and aviation), does not generate the misery of the populations of the countries rich in minerals.

First, I would like to talk about the form of the text. It is always important and interesting, and we do not do so often enough in the House, that our work takes place in synergy with the work of the European Parliament. Since the reform of the European institutions, we could, and we do very little in the Belgian Parliament, unlike the Swedish Parliament, put the red light or the orange light as soon as a text is deposited within the European Union. The different national parliaments can act. This is why there are European coordinators in the various committees of our Parliament.

There is much discussion about the democratic deficit that strikes the European Union. We must therefore rejoice that in this area we have finally addressed an essential, important issue that thus strengthens somewhere the legitimacy of European policies.

We see it all the time and we should do it systematically. We saw it last week when our prime minister finalised the debate on the problem of the Greek crisis. We will have it at the beginning of the conclusions of our hearings on the Transatlantic Treaty. We had it in June on European defence, a dossier in which our group leader Denis Ducarme has been very involved.

Therefore, it seems to me very important to continue this positive dynamic where our assembly takes into account cases on which the European Union must make decisions. We do not have the method or coercive mandate issued by the legislative power to the executive power, but we give by the vote of the resolution instructions to our Minister of Foreign Affairs and our Prime Minister as well as a support for the Belgian position that will be defended within the European Council during the "trilogue". I explain, for Ms. Grovonius in particular: the “trilogue” is the Commission, the Parliament and the Council of Ministers.

We hope that this discussion will result in an ambitious and realistic European regulation. We will follow the conclusion of this case very closely.

I would like to point out to Ms. Onkelinx, who may also have to take a course on the European institutions, that in this area, we have the obligation to operate within the European Council unanimously. And God knows how great the difficulty will be! Dr. Grovonius, a specialist in psychiatry and schizophrenia, evokes the shortcomings we would have in MR. But I fear that some of the socialist parties in power in the European Union will be the first to put a stop to a very firm decision on this issue. I speak here of the European Parliament where even Socialists voted against.

I love you, Mr. Flahaux, but I still love you. We can compare apples and pears, but we are talking about the same party: the MR, Belgian, at the level of the Federal Parliament and at the level of the European Parliament! You don’t mind being in the same position. The amendment was submitted by Mr. The European Parliament has submitted a motion to the European Parliament, but you do not vote for it. I don’t know his name, I’m not a doctor.

You’re so “Michelian” that you’d like me to talk about mr. by Michel!

Are you talking about your father?

Indeed indeed !

There is no breach at all, Mr. Chairman of the CPAS!

In this context, I would like to hold, here, in the plenary session of the Chamber, some remarks, in accordance with the request of Mr. by Louis Michel. So be reassured, you will have the right, as well as the whole Parliament, to the point of view of Mr. Louis Michel about the text at the examination today.

We really get a great lesson today!

Following the innovation, Mr. Louis Michel, in commission, in order to audition him and to hear him say all the good he thought of his amendment, you will now be his spokesman to justify the fact that you do not accept his amendment. I assume that this is part of new procedures or European rules, etc. I had not held this aspect of things, after hearing the lesson about the European institutions. Can anyone explain to me about this?

In my opinion, it must have been inspired by someone who once said his heart was bleeding.

What is the report?

The [...]

Ms. Onkelinx, you should not give lessons to others.

Can I continue, Mr President?

Please Mr Flahaux.

Just recently I asked you a question and you did not answer me. I do not feel obliged to answer you.

I welcome, in any case, on behalf of my political group, the synergy that exists between the European Union and Belgium, synergy present both within the opposition and the majority and which appeared through the hearing of specialists, in particular that of Louis Michel who brought this dossier to the European Parliament, long before Marie Arena, but also through the vote on this resolution.

The work of Louis Michel in the European Parliament must be emphasized, what you have done, which I thank you for. As Marie Arena acknowledged, it was he who moved the political lines within the different political groups of the European Parliament... (Brouhaha)

For the sake of understanding, I would like Mr. Flahaux tells us from which moment he is the spokesman of Mr. Louis Michel, because I am no longer.

Mr. Frédéric, all that I read reflects the discussions with Mr. Frédéric. by Louis Michel.

The work of mr. Louis Michel in the European Parliament must be emphasized. He moved the lines within Parliament by taking his pilgrimage stick to the various political groups. For it is not enough, as Ms. Grovonius says somewhat skillfully, to have revealed truths, delivered even more easily when one is in the opposition; it is necessary to move forward concretely.

In this context, it was important to persuade, one after the other, the political groups or at least the parties of the political groups of the European Parliament to result in a text ensuring transparency and traceability throughout the entire supply chain.

The truth also has its rights. I would like to remind you that Mr. Louis Michel was not alone among the 700 European parliamentarians. It was Ms. Marie Arena who initiated the draft resolution. She did a very important lobbying work and went on the spot to meet with the population in order to better understand all the difficulties. I wanted to signal it.

Let’s talk about history, but without starting to want to make a contest. I would like to point out that Mr. Louis Michel has been carrying this dossier since he sits in the Commission. I think he has formed, at the level of the European Parliament, a good tandem with Mrs. Arena. This is the reality.

Dear colleagues, if you wish, I will continue my speech. When you are in the courtroom, it is difficult to finish a sentence.

The Parliament, thanks to the Louis Michel/Marie Arena tandem – you see that I am open – therefore has a much more ambitious position on this matter on the eve of negotiations with the Council. Here is the form.

Now, on the bottom of the case, I think we’ve all been delighted with the conclusion and success of the Kimberley Process on Blood Diamonds. Our diplomacy, headed at the time by Louis Michel, had already played a decisive role in this matter. The Kimberley Process Certification System, launched in 2003, requires diamonds to be accompanied by a certificate of origin. It also imposes trade controls, a ban on trade with countries not signing the agreement, as well as the publication of statistics on the production and trade of diamonds. This process currently comprises almost 80 member countries including all countries – which is important – where the main centers of diamond production, trade and processing are located. Angola held the presidency of the Kimberley Process in 2015.

The objective of the Commission through its proposed Regulation is to reiterate this success for tungsten, steel, tantal and gold. I would like to point out – this will interest the Ecolo group or, in any case, Muriel Gerkens, because it is the only Ecolo present – that what is important also for these conflict minerals is recovery. In the case of tungsten, for example, it should be known that no less than 34% of tungsten is recovered. This avoids the need to import new minerals, as one can recover a not negligible part of them. This is an important point to emphasize and that will, of course, need to be further strengthened.

I would like to thank Mr. Flahaux to be concerned today with the recovery of raw materials. I was moved to hear Minister Marghem say in her General Policy Statement that she was discovering the existence of a circular economy and that it was possible to ⁇ savings in both energy and raw materials using this concept. The MR has discovered the circular economy and the recovery of raw materials, I am happy!

Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that the decrease in the exploitation of natural resources will also depend on changes in the modes of production that we will use. I agree with you, but the interest of the texts and provisions, which we are discussing today, is still of a different order. We would only take one kilogram instead of one ton, it matters that the mode of exploitation of these resources corresponds and integrates standards and ethical rules of defense of human rights.

I would like to know the arguments of your position, beyond the oratory joutes I have been witnessing for a while. Why not a equal mandatory provision for all companies known to be able to ⁇ a result, while if it is based on voluntary agreements and commitments, it leaves the door open to unfair competition and non-compliance? A similar arrangement has been put in place with regard to the illegal trade in timber, which we are trying to combat. We find that it is essential to have mandatory provisions if we want measures to have effects. Otherwise, we appear to protect, but we do not protect!

Mrs Gerkens, in referring to the aspect of recovery, I meant to say that the greater the share of recovery, the less the flow of imports and poor working conditions will arise. But you are right to say that a kilogram produced in bad conditions still deserves to retain all our attention.

This regulation, which must be adopted by the Council and Parliament, is an unprecedented political opportunity. The biggest difficulty is to get unanimous. In the absence of unanimity, we will remain in the previous situation, without text, which is totally unacceptable.

The European Parliament, by the adopted amendment, has already improved its proposal for negotiation during the trilogy compared to the Commission’s basic text.

As one might think that this is a right-wing Commission, I recall that the majority of European Commissioners are Socialists. It always makes me a little laugh when one stigmatizes the European Union when eleven heads of state and government are socialists and a large number of European Commissioners as well.

Parliament has already improved its proposal over the Commission’s basic text by moving from the principle of self-certification to more precise obligations for companies. This is the position also defended by the resolution of the majority, as of the opposition, but with more subtlety and subtlety.

It scares you when you tell the truth.

These nuances that we are introducing are assets in the hands of our Foreign Minister, who would have been served by a too divisive and too steep approach. I would like to remind you that this Regulation must be adopted in the same terms by Parliament and Council – which will vote, for the third time, unanimously. Each state has a veto right to stop the process.

One may be angelic, but what matters is to make a text come to fruition. If one is too angelic and only one state refuses, one achieves nothing in the end.

It is serious!

This is serious if you don’t get anything, unless you don’t care and you vote for very muscular measures while knowing very well that they won’t pass the way of the European Council.

Just for your little information, and without wanting to give you any lesson, decisions are made by qualified majority.

In this case, the text must be voted unanimously.

I am sorry.

Find a better source of information.

Dear colleagues, by distinguishing the differences in approach depending on the place occupied by upstream and downstream enterprises in the supply chain (Article 3 of the resolution), by recalling that for downstream enterprises the obligations are flexible and depend on a number of conditions, by emphasizing that the size of enterprises is important (point 1) with a close eye for SMEs (points 7 and 8), by favoring centralization of control in order to avoid competition between state bodies and the possible purchase of enterprises within Member States, economic arguments have therefore been well taken into account.

Furthermore, since a transparency and information obligation will be imposed on European companies at the bottom of the supply chain in order to ensure a virtuous chain, the European Union will be able to legislate on the conditions of access to its territory of products that do not come from that chain but from outside. This will require non-European operators to comply with the requirements of the European market. This is an important element because we must leverage non-European producers and consumer states. In the context of globalized competition, we must also be able to protect our market and the quality of the goods we import, a quality that has, here, an ethical dimension. In order to give some flexibility to this mechanism, we advocate, on the one hand, a review clause after three years (point 14) and, on the other hand, an enlargement clause (point 2).

During this discussion, three questions are raised.

Are we resolving all the problems related to conflicts in particular in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? No, of course ! There are many other parameters than the only financing of guerrillas, but this is a key point.

Can we do more for the thousands of diggers who, under terrible working conditions worthy of Victor Hugo's Misérables, are exploited from a young age? and yes. And the MR, with the Open Vld group and the cabinet of Deputy Prime Minister De Croo, will come with proposals in this direction at the entrance.

Are we putting our European companies at risk in a disadvantaged competitive position compared to Asian companies? By imposing on all relevant companies the obligation to disclose the identity of their suppliers, non-European operators will also be required to comply with the requirements of the European market. It will also be possible to create a market for clean minerals from conflict zones, both more united and more competitive.

In conclusion, this exciting debate allowed us to give our Minister of Foreign Affairs a clear mandate, ⁇ insufficient for some, consistent and realistic for these negotiations within the Council. We support an ambitious position to enable Belgium to play a leading role in the discussions to bring this position to the European Council.

This proposed regulation represents an opportunity to introduce more ethics into the economies of developing countries and to help local populations. This approach is fully part of the strengths of our foreign policy and development cooperation policy.

The opposition and the majority conducted an interesting debate even though sometimes the form was a bit excessive.

I would like to highlight what Louis Michel has just declared to us today: "I look forward to the excellent compromise negotiated by Denis Ducarme and the MR on this essential issue. This is proof that we, liberals, are advocates of a market economy that places ethics above sordid affairism. This compromise is a strong message sent to the government before the start of interinstitutional negotiations. It puts Belgium in an ideal position to support an ambitious and effective approach.”

Visibly in the MR, one has a standard statement that one comes out systematically, regardless of the topic of discussion or the text that is discussed. In its Communication of 20 May 2015, following the amendment submitted by Mr. Louis Michel, we talked about the universal consciousness that triumphed over sordid affairism. Regardless of the text, we keep the same rhetoric.

I am not fooled, Mr. Flahaux. It is not complicated: you have two amendments submitted by Mr. Louis Michel was voted in the European Parliament. We gave you the opportunity to revoke, word for word, the same amendment, and you did not! That said, the good news is that we have learned why since you just claimed the need to come to a compromise. I have no difficulty with this, but if you could just assume it and stop making you think that your text will change anything to the situation of the populations on the spot, that would be showing some intellectual honesty!

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I hope we can reduce the seriousness of the debate a little. After the caricatural presentation of our resolution, I would like to explain a few words about what is actually stated in the resolution.

The resolution is approved because we believe it is very important to fully develop and support a European market for responsible traded meadows. This is a topic that has been on the agenda for a long time and has been concerned with us for a long time.

How can we realize this? This can be done by breaking the link between the extraction and trade in ore, minerals and metals, on the one hand, and the financing of armed conflicts, on the other. This is what we want to do, also in cooperation with the companies. Companies also play an important role in respecting human rights through corporate social responsibility. This is clearly stated, among other things, in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and must therefore be adhered to.

This proposal for a resolution aims to communicate the initiative for a European Union regulation on resins, minerals and metals from conflict and high-risk areas. That is why this resolution is presented here today.

How to implement it in practice is, of course, the core question. A number of very important initiatives in this regard have already been taken in the past. I have cited it extensively during the discussion in the committee and I will therefore make it very brief here.

In America it is known as the Dodd-Frank Act, where section 1502 requires due diligence – this is due diligence – to the listed companies. Such due diligence involves developing policies and developing a risk analysis for companies, mitigating risk, conducting thorough audits of the supply chain and reporting to the public. The focus is mainly on ore and minerals from the Democratic Republic of Congo and neighboring countries.

OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas. This is a voluntary directive. Voluntary guidelines should help companies from OECD member states to re-assert that due diligence content. Again, this is about risk assessment, preparing a risk reduction plan, external audit, reporting, and so on.

These initiatives, which we have heard repeatedly in the hearings, have also become increasingly a source of inspiration for companies with important commercial activities in the mineral supply chain for gold, tin, tantaal and wolfram. Companies do not want to be linked to conflict minerals or human rights violations and are also making increasing efforts to do so. The hearings have shown that the different initiatives of different sectors are ⁇ worth mentioning. The IPIS study revealed that companies’ initiatives can also have a significant impact on the ground.

Following all these due diligence initiatives, in 2010 the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the European Commission to develop an EU framework in this regard. The EU is a major importer of these minerals. The 3TGs – tin, wolfram, tantaal and gold – are used in all kinds of products that we also use, such as cars, electronics, packaging, building materials, lighting, aviation, jewelry and so on.

Last year, the European Commission proposed a draft regulation on minerals and metals from conflict and high-risk areas, based on the principles of OECD guidelines. Of course, as we have just noticed, there is also a lot of debate about how we should address this now in concrete terms. Can we make due diligence mandatory? Can this be done in different ways, depending on the different places in the supply chain? This is a serious and rather complex question. It is not so easy to answer. Our question, of course, should be what has the most effect. How can we effectively change the things we all want to change? Should we make everything compulsory? If we are not able to enforce or control that on the ground, then is that a problem? Should we go step by step and raise awareness and encourage the actors to engage themselves?

To this question, Madame Claerhout, we have had answers. We now know that a voluntary process affects very few companies (450) and a very small proportion of trade (3%). We know that this has no major impact on the situation of local populations.

The NGOs who came to the hearing, as well as Mr. Michel himself, during his hearing by our commission, made clear the need to implement a mandatory process so that there is a real impact on the existing difficulties and to be able to put an end to these unacceptable working conditions and these conflict situations.

But of course, nobody said that these measures should be implemented and nothing to do to accompany them. But the opposite! We all highlighted the need to accompany this process so that it happens in the best possible conditions. Today, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, you know, green chains and ethical processes are already being implemented.

By mandatory regulation, by continuing to accompany the process and by extending it to other countries in the region, we could actually have a major impact on this catastrophic human rights situation in these regions. But unfortunately, once again, in the name of economic considerations and in order not to deflect yourself in relation to companies, you prefer to settle for this purely voluntary approach, which we regret.

A little further in my presentation, I come to my suggestions on this. These are also included in the resolution and are absolutely not non-binding. You may repeat that a hundred times, Mrs. Grovonius, but those who read the resolution will find that they are not non-binding.

I recall that during the hearings several experts pointed out that the existing non-binding initiatives are indeed successful and have an effect in the field. I do not understand why you continue to deny that. It is easy to say that everything should be mandatory, but the literature also shows that the supply chain is so diversified that one has to work in different ways depending on the place in the supply chain, the type of business, and so on. I will come to my suggestions later.

No one has said that one cannot adapt the device at a given time, but it must always remain binding and mandatory. This is the nuance.

I was listing a number of questions that we need to answer. Should we go step by step or take various measures related to due diligence, adapted to the place in the supply chain and the role of the companies?

I have some additional concerns. For example, we must be very aware that due diligence does not necessarily involve the removal of all minerals from conflict and high risk zones. It is about assessing the risk and acting accordingly. Involving companies in this process is crucial.

Also, an obligation and a too narrow geographical determination could initially result in a de facto embargo, in which our companies would rather leave certain regions for convenience. Although this Regulation does not focus on a single region, it is still possible, as there will always be zones that are not labelled as conflict areas. It is important to note that the local population has a great need for the income of the natural resources. These regions therefore really need responsible and thoughtful investments and the promotion of trade in ore, minerals and metals through official channels to generate sustainable economic growth.

Important in all this is to know – and this point I want to emphasize – that only an integrated approach will ultimately produce sustainable long-term results. I mean an approach involving not only companies, but also local governments, other actors, foreign governments, diplomatic actors and international organizations. Only then can we really address these problems. We talked a lot about this during the hearings, during the committee meeting and also thereafter.

This resolution calls for the European Council to advocate for a binding regulation on due diligence or due diligence, depending on and tailored to the activities of the companies, their size and their place in the supply chain. That is, the measures are differentiated and differ for upstream and downstream companies. This was also emphasized during the hearings, namely that we know that the due diligence principle is by definition flexible and risk-dependent. Precautionary measures are also heavily dependent on the place of the company in the chain. All representatives, not only the companies but also the NGOs, stressed that we must take this into account when we come up with a proposal and draft a resolution.

For these reasons, we propose in the resolution to strengthen the obligations for all EU importers, refineries and smelters of tin, tantaal, wolfram and gold and their derived metals. In addition, we call for incentives to encourage downstream companies to do due diligence.

In addition, we also request an evaluation after three years to verify whether an update appears necessary.

In other words, we focus on the following elements: a policy as efficient and effective as possible by focusing primarily on the core of the value chain, namely the level of the importers, the refineries and the melting plants, but also on the importers of the metals among various forms of trade such as bars, bars, wires, plates and so on.

We also focus on using a global geographical scope for the definition of “conflict area” so that there would be no stigmatisation of a particular region to avoid de facto embargoes.

We also call for attention to the competitiveness of our companies by providing for a transition period and assisting SMEs in this.

We also call on the European Union to take incentive and awareness-raising measures through its public procurement procedures, through an accessible list of responsible melting plants, refineries and importers worldwide, and to provide a transitional period and the necessary support. In this way, smaller companies will also receive the necessary adjustment period and support. In this way, we keep the system, in other words, manageable.

Convergence with the already existing initiatives in the sectors we also ask in our resolution, as well as attention to the socio-economic development of the local population. We also call for support for regional initiatives, such as the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, which connects the fight against the illegal exploitation of raw materials, and to work with these initiatives and the local civil society to provide adequate guidance to local producers in this regulation.

In short, we focus on the core of the value chain. Due diligence will need to be the most sophisticated in this priority, not only by focusing on policy development, risk analysis, control of those risks, but also by introducing independent third-party audits, and public reporting. In other words, an obligation.

This obligation for all importers has the effect of extending the scope of the obligation not only to the European melting and refining plants, but also abroad.

Well, focusing on these players in the production chain is absolutely not a minimum approach. Therefore, doing nothing is not the matter. It is the way we can gain control of a significant part of the production chain; thus we can also make the process controllable.

Also large downstream companies will have to do due diligence and report on this. In fact, they are already subject to the existing European directive concerning the disclosure of non-financial information and information on diversity.

That Directive requires certain large undertakings and groups to report on, inter alia, their human rights policies, the fight against corruption and due diligence in the supply chain. So we choose to emphasize this too.

For the other downstream companies, mainly SMEs and micro-enterprises, we choose not to impose them too heavy obligations, but encourage them to demonstrate the necessary due diligence or due diligence. In this regard, we propose to develop a flexible information obligation under certain conditions. For example, there should be sector-level support and focus on real risk materials, all in line with existing due diligence initiatives that are already effectively implemented today. We also emphasize that downstream companies should be encouraged to take all reasonable measures to know the risks and to publish information about them.

In order to successfully ⁇ our goal and to make companies more and more sensitive to this problem, it is of utmost importance to develop regulations that can be implemented and controlled in a reasonable and serious way. We must ensure that the measures we take are manageable and enforceable to have impact. Otherwise, it will not encourage companies to do due diligence in a serious way. In this way, we believe, we can really make progress and contribute in a reasonable and serious way to a conflict-free market for mill in Europe. That can only, again, within that broader, integrated approach. Focusing only on this will not solve the problem either.

Finally, I would like to say how important this is because in this way Europe can also express its vision of the kind of society and community it represents, namely a society that considers that the natural resources and treasures of the earth should help the population living there, not to feed armed conflicts, but to ⁇ socio-economic progress and thus give the people who live there a better life.

I will be brief. As much as I wanted to be long on the previous text, so I will essentially refer to the interventions of my colleague Mrs. Matz in the committee for this text, as well as the interventions of Mr. Matz. Claude Rolin at the European Parliament, who has been active on the subject. Unfortunately, we do not find much of this unanimity in the texts that are presented to us today.

First, I would like to comment on methodology and methodology. I am pleased that the President of the Committee on Foreign Relations is present. I regret this text, which turned out to be the last straight line because there was a consensus on the methodology of work in the Committee on Foreign Relations. Remember, two months ago, the chairman of the committee asked each of the groups what was their priority text. I had chosen the extension of the genocide to the Arameans, the PS had chosen this text, others had chosen it. While I had a text on this issue that preceded the PS text, because it’s a topic I’ve been on for many years – I’m at the head of a parliamentary investigation committee in the Senate in 2003 and I’m also the Kimberley process – I joined the idea that we were going to work on the PS text. Unfortunately, this was not the case and I regret it. As for the previous text, I had also submitted a text and the majority has, again, rolled out in the last straight line with a text that it has had a hard time bringing about. This kind of work must be stopped. The majority must respect the opposition, it must respect its own methodology, that which it has adopted in commission. This is how we have always worked during previous legislatures and I would like to return to a work where everyone respects the work of parliamentary groups, especially with regard to the priorities chosen by our colleagues.

Unlike Mrs. Grovonius, I was not very reassured by the intervention of Mr. Grovonius. by Michel. Maybe it’s because I’ve heard it for a while. I had heard him make strong, matamoresque, powerful statements about ethics but I had also heard him say “through a few adjustments.” And by hearing these three words, someone who follows these questions and who has been doing politics for a while feels well that the affair is going to get serious. We feel that behind the handcuff effects, bodybuilding, statements in front of the media, we are preparing something that has absolutely nothing to do with everything that has been declared.

I was not surprised to hear that Mr. Louis Michel only engaged him, since, in his own group in the European Parliament, a whole host of his colleagues were not very happy to have heard these statements, beginning with Mr. Michel. by Verhofstadt.

I felt well that these statements were to be framed within our assembly and that it was better, in order not to lose too much the face, that Mr. Louis Michel himself came to declare that all this was beautiful, but it was necessary to rewrite the text that was his. Recalling that consensus will need to be reached in the European Council of Ministers and that therefore we should not be too ambitious.

Therefore, we have a resolution that is below the statements and proposals of all the political groups in the European Parliament, including ours. Here is the conclusion.

It is true that we wanted to co-sign the resolution of the PS since the latter had made it a priority at the level of our commission and we maintain this line. It means that we can set up a system throughout the supply chain – and not just the production chain, Mrs Claerhout – that respects this due diligence.

I would like to remind you that due diligence is a fairly lightweight mechanism, as it requires companies to exercise, themselves, control over their supplies and the materials used in one or that component. This is not an external control but it is checked that companies do it a little seriously and it is requested that this due diligence meets some very precise criteria. However, it is the companies themselves that continue to control.

Indeed, the private sector we received in the commission asserted to us that this system was suitable for it. This had surprised more than one, but the representative of the FEB had stated that the development of an ambitious mechanism suited him. With caution, he had suggested that this mechanism could be systematic and that he did not see much objection to the recommendations of the European Parliament.

Unfortunately, Belgium will not go further. What is surprising, however, is that the more I can hear that the European Council needs unanimity, the more I do not see why Belgium would not have, in this negotiation, a clear and strong position through a Parliament resolution. I regret that the position of the majority today is not that clear and strong.