{"id":38086,"date":"2024-12-11T15:08:09","date_gmt":"2024-12-11T14:08:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipisresearch.be\/?post_type=weekly-briefing&p=38086"},"modified":"2025-09-17T22:11:03","modified_gmt":"2025-09-17T20:11:03","slug":"the-gendered-dimensions-of-the-eu-conflict-minerals-regulation-a-step-forward-in-addressing-gender-specific-risks-in-conflict-affected-mining-areas","status":"publish","type":"weekly-briefing","link":"https:\/\/ipisresearch.be\/nl\/weekly-briefing\/the-gendered-dimensions-of-the-eu-conflict-minerals-regulation-a-step-forward-in-addressing-gender-specific-risks-in-conflict-affected-mining-areas\/","title":{"rendered":"The gendered dimensions of the EU Conflict Minerals Regulation: A step forward in addressing gender-specific risks in conflict-affected mining areas?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Regulation (EU) 2017\/821<\/a>, hereafter referred to as the Conflict Minerals Regulation (CMR), came into force in January 2021 to address the human rights abuses linked to the extraction and trade of so-called \u2018conflict minerals\u2019. These minerals, and explicitly tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold (3TG), have been linked to the financing of armed conflict, forced labor, corruption, and money laundering in conflict-affected and high-risk areas (CAHRAs). The regulation is part of the European Union (EU)\u2019s commitment to ensuring responsible sourcing in the global supply chain by targeting companies that import minerals into the Union. While the regulation aims to address broader human rights concerns, the preamble also specifically mentions gendered protection goals, recognizing the disproportionate impact of conflict minerals on women<\/a>, as armed groups often use mass rape as a strategy to control local population<\/a>s. The regulation has therefore the potential to represent a significant step forward in addressing the gendered dimensions of conflict minerals, as it seems to at least acknowledge the gender-specific risks faced by women and girls in these contexts. However, is the CMR a sufficiently strong tool to safeguard women\u2019s rights and minimize gender-specific risks in conflict-affected mining areas?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The gendered impact of \u2018conflict minerals\u2019: extraction and gendered violence<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Women and other gendered-marginalized groups, hereafter marginalized genders[1]<\/a>, in conflict-affected mining communities are disproportionately impacted by the instability caused by the extraction of minerals<\/a>. Gender-based violence, including, but not restricted to, sexual exploitation<\/a>, is widespread in these regions, where armed groups are present and where mineral extraction activities take place. This violence can also be perpetrated by security forces, such as police, military, or private security personnel<\/a>, who are tasked with protecting mining operations, further exacerbating gender-specific risks. \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, artisanal mining is a source of income available to marginalized genders in these conflict-affected and high-risk areas<\/a>. Their roles include tasks such as crushing, grinding, sieving, washing, and panning. Since marginalized genders are primarily involved in the processing side of artisanal mining, they are particularly vulnerable to chemical hazards<\/a>. Besides, these tasks pay much less than tasks attributed to men. However, marginalized genders’ economic marginalization, limited access to resources, and limited decision-making power in mining governance make them highly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, further establishing cycles of violence and disempowerment<\/a>. This dynamic perpetuates the systemic discrimination and human rights abuses faced by marginalized genders in mining communities, and in CAHRAs especially.  This dynamic perpetuates the systemic discrimination and human rights abuses faced by marginalized genders in mining communities, and in CAHRAs especially.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, due to their often primary roles in water collection, agriculture, and caregiving, which are directly impacted by environmental harm, marginalized genders bear a disproportionate burden of the environmental degradation<\/a> caused by mining activities, as it devastates water sources, agricultural productivity, and community health, thereby exacerbating existing poverty and inequality. Addressing these deep-rooted, intersecting inequities is crucial for effectively protecting marginalized genders’ rights, including from sexual violence, promoting their meaningful participation in the mining sector, and fostering sustainable development in these fragile, conflict-affected areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, a study published by IPIS<\/a> indicates that in the Democratic Republic of Congo, while women play a crucial role in artisanal mining, they face significant barriers due to gender inequalities. These include limited access to resources, discriminatory practices, and exclusion from decision-making roles. Formalization efforts have been inadequate in addressing women’s financial difficulties, hindering their participation in the formal sector. Findings indicate that, although responsible sourcing initiatives have reduced some exploitation and violence, they have exacerbated the socio-economic challenges for women, pushing many deeper into informality and precarity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The gender dimension of the CMR: it\u2019s all in the preamble<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overall, the CMR mandates companies to undertake due diligence processes to ensure that the sourcing of minerals does not perpetuate conflict or human rights abuses. Points (2) and (10) of the CMR\u2019s introductory part (preamble<\/a>) acknowledge the use of violence and rape by armed groups towards women and therefore suggest the differential impact of the mineral trade on women and men in CAHRAs.  As such, the CMR\u2019s preamble seems to stress that women should be specifically considered in due diligence processes, as they are often the primary victims of violence in conflict zones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the regulation seems less explicit in addressing other gendered aspects of mineral supply chains. For instance, the regulation appears to narrow the concept of gender to women alone, overlooking other marginalized genders and the broader system that shapes gender roles and responsibilities, controls access to resources, and influences decision-making power. In fact, the regulation seems to fall short in fostering the inclusion and participation of marginalized genders in decision-making processes related to mineral extraction and trade, while it would help to ensure that the benefits of responsible sourcing are more equitably distributed and ultimately contribute to the protection and advancement of marginalized genders’ rights in conflict-affected mining communities<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, the regulation’s implementation has been hindered by a lack of consistent monitoring and accountability, let alone from a gendered point of view, leaving marginalized genders in mining communities vulnerable to ongoing abuses and unable to meaningfully participate in and benefit from the mineral trade<\/a>. Moreover, marginalized genders continue to face systemic challenges due to weak enforcement mechanisms and the slow adoption of gender-inclusive policies by companies<\/a>. Additionally, there is a lack of comprehensive, gender-disaggregated data<\/a> to measure the direct and indirect impacts of the regulation on marginalized genders’ rights, economic opportunities, and overall well-being in conflict-affected mining areas. This data gap makes it difficult to accurately assess the full effectiveness of the regulation in addressing the unique vulnerabilities and needs of marginalized genders in these communities. It is therefore problematic that the recent EU Commission report on the CMR<\/a> does not mention gender once in its evaluation of the grassroots impact of the regulation so far.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite the regulation\u2019s aim to reduce the exploitation of conflict minerals and improve supply chain transparency, the EU Commission report on the CMR<\/a> shows that local communities, especially in resource-rich regions, have not experienced significant changes in their economic or social conditions. The regulation\u2019s focus on importer-level due diligence, without adequate support at the local level, highlights a critical gap: local actors, particularly marginalized genders, are not sufficiently considered or empowered in the process. Overall, the perspectives and experiences of marginalized genders in mining communities have been largely overlooked in the CMR\u2019s implementation and evaluation. Meaningful consultation and participation of marginalized genders are crucial to understanding the gendered realities on the ground and designing effective interventions<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Key recommendations for strengthening gender-sen<\/strong>sitive practices in the CMR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n