The Regulation (EU) 2017/821, 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 ‘conflict minerals’. 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)’s 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, as armed groups often use mass rape as a strategy to control local populations. 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’s rights and minimize gender-specific risks in conflict-affected mining areas?
The gendered impact of ‘conflict minerals’: extraction and gendered violence
Women and other gendered-marginalized groups, hereafter marginalized genders[1], in conflict-affected mining communities are disproportionately impacted by the instability caused by the extraction of minerals. Gender-based violence, including, but not restricted to, sexual exploitation, 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, who are tasked with protecting mining operations, further exacerbating gender-specific risks.
Additionally, artisanal mining is a source of income available to marginalized genders in these conflict-affected and high-risk areas. 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. 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. 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.
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 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.
For example, a study published by IPIS 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.
The gender dimension of the CMR: it’s all in the preamble
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’s introductory part (preamble) 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’s 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.
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.
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. Moreover, marginalized genders continue to face systemic challenges due to weak enforcement mechanisms and the slow adoption of gender-inclusive policies by companies. Additionally, there is a lack of comprehensive, gender-disaggregated data 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 does not mention gender once in its evaluation of the grassroots impact of the regulation so far.
Despite the regulation’s aim to reduce the exploitation of conflict minerals and improve supply chain transparency, the EU Commission report on the CMR shows that local communities, especially in resource-rich regions, have not experienced significant changes in their economic or social conditions. The regulation’s 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’s implementation and evaluation. Meaningful consultation and participation of marginalized genders are crucial to understanding the gendered realities on the ground and designing effective interventions.
Key recommendations for strengthening gender-sensitive practices in the CMR
- Strengthening gender-specific due diligence
Mandatory gender-disaggregated reporting requirements should be implemented, where companies are obligated to collect and disclose data on the differential impacts of their mineral sourcing practices on men, women and other gendered-marginalized groups. Additionally, targeted training programs should be developed to empower and build the capacity of marginalized genders in mining communities, enabling them to actively participate in and benefit from the mineral supply chain. Furthermore, gender considerations must be systematically integrated into all aspects of mineral supply chain governance, from policy development to implementation and monitoring. This would involve incorporating the expertise and perspectives of marginalized gender rights organizations, as well as ensuring the meaningful participation of marginalized genders in decision-making processes related to the regulation.
- Promoting marginalized genders’ economic empowerment in the artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) sector
More substantial resources should be allocated to initiatives that empower marginalized genders economically, such as supporting marginalized genders’ cooperatives, improving access to credit and technical training, and promoting their entrepreneurship in the mining sector. These efforts would not only improve marginalized genders’ livelihoods and access to economic opportunities but also contribute to the overall success of the CMR in promoting gender equality and marginalized genders’ rights in conflict-affected mining communities. Furthermore, providing marginalized genders with access to decision-making roles within local mining governance structures can amplify their voices and enable them to advocate for policies that directly address their concerns and the gender-specific risks they face, as well as benefit to wider communities.
- Improving gender-disaggregated data collection in mining areas
More rigorous and comprehensive data collection frameworks should be established to accurately quantify different experiences across genders, including on the extent and aspects of gender-based violence experienced by marginalized genders in mining communities. This robust data should then be used to develop evidence-based policies, programs, and interventions that not only protect marginalized genders but also address the deep-rooted structural and social factors that contribute to their increased vulnerability in conflict-affected regions. Additionally, this data should be regularly updated and shared with relevant stakeholders, including governments and local communities, to ensure that the policies and interventions respond to the evolving needs and experiences of marginalized genders in the mining sector.
Toward a more inclusive and effective CMR for gender equality and marginalized genders’ rights
In its limited effort to represent a critical step towards responsible mineral sourcing, the CMR’s gender-specific protections remain underdeveloped. While the regulation acknowledges the impact of the mineral trade on women (only), so far it does not effectively allow to address the specific human rights of marginalized genders, let alone gender-based violence. Simply incorporating sexual violence into a legal framework does not guarantee that mining companies will take meaningful action. To address this, it is essential that mining companies, as part of their human rights due diligence processes, implement strategies and measures specifically designed to effectively prevent and mitigate gendered impacts associated with their operations.
In conclusion, to achieve its objective of promoting sustainable and equitable development in these fragile regions, the regulation must be complemented by a robust monitoring and evaluation framework that tracks its gender-related impacts. Additionally, it should be coupled with increased funding and capacity-building support for marginalized gender-led organizations and initiatives in mining communities, enabling them to play a central role in the oversight of the regulation.
Further reading
[1] Marginalized genders refer to gender identities and expressions that are systematically disadvantaged or rendered invisible within societal structures.
This briefing was produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of the editorial is the sole responsibility of IPIS and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.
