P
So the EU has released a draft of their conflict minerals regulation to be. It appears the focus will be on tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold importers within the EU, and their need to conduct due diligence efforts, on a voluntary basis. As such, this seems to be complementary to US law and would make that effort somewhat easier.
However, from the FAQ on http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-157_en.htm I read the following:
It is intended to complement the Dodd Frank Act which is indirectly responsible for a large share of due diligence efforts among EU downstream users. The weakness in the present global system is the flow of information from the upstream to the downstream part, hence the focus of the EU proposal on importers. As the draft EU regulation is not a standalone proposal, the effect of incentives and ongoing due diligence work in compliance with the OECD guidance will help stimulate a good response among EU importers. The EU is particularly keen not to keep its market open to responsibly traded minerals from conflict-affected regions.
I don't really understand the last sentence. It's perfectly clear, but to me it seems they should be keen to keep it's market open to responsibly traded minerals from conflict-affected regions (instead of not keen).
To try to close the market for responsibly traded menerals from specific regions seems more like a boycot to me. I wonder if that would help those regions...
What's your interpretation? Did they keep in the word "not" in by mistake?
However, from the FAQ on http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-157_en.htm I read the following:
It is intended to complement the Dodd Frank Act which is indirectly responsible for a large share of due diligence efforts among EU downstream users. The weakness in the present global system is the flow of information from the upstream to the downstream part, hence the focus of the EU proposal on importers. As the draft EU regulation is not a standalone proposal, the effect of incentives and ongoing due diligence work in compliance with the OECD guidance will help stimulate a good response among EU importers. The EU is particularly keen not to keep its market open to responsibly traded minerals from conflict-affected regions.
I don't really understand the last sentence. It's perfectly clear, but to me it seems they should be keen to keep it's market open to responsibly traded minerals from conflict-affected regions (instead of not keen).
To try to close the market for responsibly traded menerals from specific regions seems more like a boycot to me. I wonder if that would help those regions...
What's your interpretation? Did they keep in the word "not" in by mistake?
