# CE2004088EN.01009901.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/99

---

(2004/C 88 E/0104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2574/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject:   Violation of international directives by a Dutch company in the DRC

Subject:

| 1. | Has the Commission been following the reports about the involvement of the Dutch Chemie Pharmacie Holland (CPH) Company in the Democratic Republic of Congo? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has the Commission been following the reports about the involvement of the Dutch Chemie Pharmacie Holland (CPH) Company in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

| 2. | Is it true that CPH has paid hundreds of thousands of euros to the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocratie (RCD) in Goma? If so, when did the Commission become aware of the payments and what is its view thereof? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it true that CPH has paid hundreds of thousands of euros to the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocratie (RCD) in Goma? If so, when did the Commission become aware of the payments and what is its view thereof?

| 3. | If the accusations are well-founded, will the Commission take measures against CPH and, possibly, other companies, as called for, ‘inter alia’, by the UN Expert Panel? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the accusations are well-founded, will the Commission take measures against CPH and, possibly, other companies, as called for, ‘inter alia’, by the UN Expert Panel?

| 4. | In connection with the UN, is the Commission prepared to call for a moratorium in the coltan trade until contacts can be established with a transitional government and strict agreements concluded? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In connection with the UN, is the Commission prepared to call for a moratorium in the coltan trade until contacts can be established with a transitional government and strict agreements concluded? If not, why not?

| 5. | By analogy with the Kimberley Procedure with regard to the diamond trade, is the Commission prepared to initiate an inquiry into certification procedures for coltan and other raw materials which would make it impossible for the conflict in the DRC to be financed from trade in raw materials? What is the Commission's view of the UN Expert Panel's recommendation that a permanent body be set up to monitor raw materials involved in the conflict? |
| --- | --- |

5.

By analogy with the Kimberley Procedure with regard to the diamond trade, is the Commission prepared to initiate an inquiry into certification procedures for coltan and other raw materials which would make it impossible for the conflict in the DRC to be financed from trade in raw materials? What is the Commission's view of the UN Expert Panel's recommendation that a permanent body be set up to monitor raw materials involved in the conflict?

| 6. | Given the involvement of Rwanda, a signatory to the Cotonou Agreement, in trade in coltan from the DRC, is the Commission prepared to make urgent representations to the Rwandan Government for it to set up a Commission, like the Porter Commission in Uganda, to inquire into the involvement of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens in the plunder of raw materials in the DRC? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Given the involvement of Rwanda, a signatory to the Cotonou Agreement, in trade in coltan from the DRC, is the Commission prepared to make urgent representations to the Rwandan Government for it to set up a Commission, like the Porter Commission in Uganda, to inquire into the involvement of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens in the plunder of raw materials in the DRC?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2003)

(29 September 2003)

| 1. to 3. | The Commission follows, to the extent possible, individual cases relating to the ‘Report of Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)’. However, the follow-up is the responsibility of individual countries. Comments on cases being pursued by national authorities are not appropriate while investigations are taking place.
  The Commission notes that the report of the United Nations (UN) Panel stated that a number of companies operating in DRC had failed to adhere to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The OECD Guidelines contain voluntary principles and standards for responsible business conduct in areas including human rights, disclosure of information and anti-corruption. The Commission strongly supports the Guidelines as a key corporate responsibility instrument with global reach. National Contact Points in each adhering country handle enquiries relating to the Guidelines and cases of alleged non-adherence. The Commission considers that allegations of conduct inconsistent with the OECD Guidelines should be addressed to the relevant National Contact Point, which will investigate accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

1. to 3.

The Commission follows, to the extent possible, individual cases relating to the ‘Report of Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)’. However, the follow-up is the responsibility of individual countries. Comments on cases being pursued by national authorities are not appropriate while investigations are taking place.

The Commission notes that the report of the United Nations (UN) Panel stated that a number of companies operating in DRC had failed to adhere to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The OECD Guidelines contain voluntary principles and standards for responsible business conduct in areas including human rights, disclosure of information and anti-corruption. The Commission strongly supports the Guidelines as a key corporate responsibility instrument with global reach. National Contact Points in each adhering country handle enquiries relating to the Guidelines and cases of alleged non-adherence. The Commission considers that allegations of conduct inconsistent with the OECD Guidelines should be addressed to the relevant National Contact Point, which will investigate accordingly.

| 4. and 5. | The Commission has discussed with the Panel (which is finalising its final report for October 2003) the coltan moratorium proposal and they consider it is not possible to implement and that comparison with the Kimberley process is not appropriate. The Panel is not going to propose such a moratorium.
  The Transitional Government in DRC has not yet established full and effective control over its vast territory. However, the United Nations Organisation Mission in the (MONUC) forces are now present in large parts of Eastern Congo and with the warring parties' agreement on the Army establishment, it is only a question of time before effective control is established.
  It is the Commission's view that a permanent body might have been appropriate at an earlier stage of the conflict. However, it is now for the Transitional Government to take appropriate measures to control the exploitation of raw materials in the country. |
| --- | --- |

4. and 5.

The Commission has discussed with the Panel (which is finalising its final report for October 2003) the coltan moratorium proposal and they consider it is not possible to implement and that comparison with the Kimberley process is not appropriate. The Panel is not going to propose such a moratorium.

The Transitional Government in DRC has not yet established full and effective control over its vast territory. However, the United Nations Organisation Mission in the (MONUC) forces are now present in large parts of Eastern Congo and with the warring parties' agreement on the Army establishment, it is only a question of time before effective control is established.

It is the Commission's view that a permanent body might have been appropriate at an earlier stage of the conflict. However, it is now for the Transitional Government to take appropriate measures to control the exploitation of raw materials in the country.

| 6. | The Commission would point out that while several persons and bodies in Uganda were named by the Panel, only one name — albeit an important army person — was named in the Panel's report on Rwanda. Thus the situation is not the same. It is the Commission's understanding that this issue may be taken up in the Panel's report to the Security Council foreseen for October 2003 |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Commission would point out that while several persons and bodies in Uganda were named by the Panel, only one name — albeit an important army person — was named in the Panel's report on Rwanda. Thus the situation is not the same. It is the Commission's understanding that this issue may be taken up in the Panel's report to the Security Council foreseen for October 2003

---