WRITTEN QUESTION E-3498/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Investigation into coltan cartel.
Date: 2002-01-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, border war, cartel, metallic ore, natural resources

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/27

The IF will be added to the EIB continuing own resource activities. Although operational management of
the IF will be carried out exclusively by the EIB, close co-operation with the Commission will be necessary,
in order to maximise synergies and cross-fertilisation in the programming and implementation process of
European Development Fund (EDF) resources.

The preparation of Country Strategy Papers provides an opportunity for the EIB to contribute its advice
and to ensure to the maximum extent possible that the decisions taken will enhance EIB activities in a
given sector. At the same time, Delegations will be able to profit from EIB’s experience and expertise.

The Commission and the EIB will have then to co-ordinate their policy of intervention in the African,
Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries in order to support private sector development and macro-economic
reforms. In order to be effective and complementary, the IF and the assistance offered by the Commission
on EDF funds will need to work in tandem, e.g. by ensuring that the Commission focuses on supporting
the necessary macro-economic reforms, by building capacities in the ACP countries, by encouraging
foreign direct
local enterprises through technical
assistance-related programmes.

investment and by contributing to the growth of

(2002/C 229 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3498/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Investigation into coltan cartel

Within the Belgian parliamentary committee of inquiry on the Great Lakes, a suspicion has been expressed
that the professional association of coltan producers, the Tantalium-Niobium International Study Center
(TIC), based in Brussels, could be a front for a cartel which controls coltan prices.

A large proportion of coltan production takes place in the Kivu region in eastern Congo, which is
occupied by Ugandan and Rwandan troops and by rebels who have their support. Recent UN reports
indicate that these countries, which are Congo’s neighbours, are keeping the war going because they have
an interest in plundering commodities there.

As it is thanks to the proceeds from environmentally damaging exploitation of raw materials that the war
is able to continue, has the Commission investigated the possible formation of a cartel by the TIC?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2002)

The Commission is fully aware of the environmental and economic losses experienced by the Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC) because of the protracted situation of conflict within its territory. It has taken
note of the findings presented in the Addendum (December 2001) to the United Nations (UN) report on
illegal exploitation of natural resources in DRC and follows with interest initiatives like the recent report
on coltan trade investigations presented in Brussels by the International Peace Information Service with the
support of European non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

Even if Coltan exploitation is a major economic interest that can magnify the real security concerns utilised
by Rwanda and Burundi to justify their occupation, other countries involved in the conflict are exploiting
other resources like diamonds and tropical forest.

It has been reported that a Zimbabwean company whose board comprises military figures has effectively
created the world’s largest logging concession by gaining rights to exploit 33 millions hectares of tropical
forest in DRC, equivalent to 15 % of the whole territory. Such commercial involvement in DRC clearly
provides a very strong disincentive to their withdrawal from military intervention.

C 229 E/28

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

The Commission, for its part, has not conducted investigations into the raw materials trade and specifically
on the role of European producers/traders entertaining commercial relations with DRC. At present there
are not compelling reasons to impose sanctions on any of the parties involved in DRC’s resources
exploitation. The United Nations (UN) Security Council decided on 19 December 2001 to postpone a
decision on such an issue for another six months and gave a mandate to the six-member panel of experts
to further deepen investigations. An interim report is expected by March 2002. After that, it is hoped to
have definitive elements on which the international community could base its action.

(2002/C 229 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3506/01

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 December 2001)

Subject: Antidumping duty on commercial fertiliser

What are the Commission’s reasons for retaining the antidumping duty on commercial fertilisers from
eastern Europe and the proposal to increase it?

By reducing the import duty on grain, the Commission has brought prices down as it desired. Proposing a
higher antidumping duty on commercial fertiliser would therefore unreasonably reduce agriculture’s ability
to compete in the EU and represent a complete reversal of the Commission’s present trade policy.

Does the Commission agree with this assessment?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2002)

The Community has imposed anti-dumping duties on a number of nitrogenous fertilisers from certain
third countries, including from certain countries of Eastern Europe.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that Community producers which are suffering
injury as a result of dumped imports are entitled to protection in the form of anti-dumping duties in
accordance with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Anti-Dumping Agreement and Community
legislation. In the fertiliser cases, the Commission has proposed to Council the imposition of anti-dumping
the evidence presented by the complainant Community
duties only after thorough investigation of
industry, the exporters, importers and users concerned.

It is to be noted that anti-dumping duties are only proposed if it is in the interest of the Community as a
whole, taking account of the interests of all the parties concerned by the proceeding. In each of these
fertiliser cases, all parties concerned had the possibility to submit their views. In particular, farmers’
organisations have systematically been invited to contribute to the investigations. Moreover, parties who so
requested were granted an opportunity to be heard by the Commission. The Commission carried out an
analysis of the possible negative effects of anti-dumping measures on users and in particular on farmers.
On the basis of the data received and verified, the Commission reached the conclusion that the potential
increase in farmers’ costs which might result from the imposition of such anti-dumping duties, even under
a worst case scenario, would be very limited (less than 1 %) and, in view of all the circumstances, was not
such as to justify denying the Community fertiliser industry relief from proven unfair trade practices.

The Honourable Member also refers to certain reductions in cereals import duties. These reductions were
made in accordance with the Community’s commitments under the WTO Agreement. The reduction in
customs tariffs on agricultural goods is in no way linked to measures aimed at combating injurious
dumping. The objective of anti-dumping measures is to eliminate the effects of injurious dumping, which
are established despite the existence of any customs tariffs.