REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Review of the functioning and effectiveness of Regulation (EU) 2017/821 (Conflict Minerals Regulation) pursuant to Article 17 (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/821
Date: 2024-09-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: gold, import (EU), import policy, mineral resources, originating product, tantalum, third country, tin, tungsten, war

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.9.2024  COM(2024) 415 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Review of the functioning and effectiveness of Regulation (EU) 2017/821 (Conflict Minerals Regulation) pursuant to Article 17 (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/821  
 
 
I. 

INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this Report is to present the findings of the European Commission (hereafter 
the Commission) on the first review of the functioning and effectiveness of Regulation (EU) 
2017/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 laying down supply 
chain due diligence obligations for Union importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, 
and  gold  originating  from  conflict-affected  and  high-risk  areas1  (the  Regulation).  The 
Regulation entered into force on 8 June 2017. Its operational due diligence requirements apply 
to  Union  importers  of  Tin,  Tungsten,  Tantalum,  and  Gold  (3TG)  since  1  January  2021. 
Specifically, the Regulation establishes a Union system for supply chain due diligence, in order 
to  curtail  opportunities  for  armed  groups  and  security  forces  to  benefit  from  trade  in  3TG 
through  preventing  the  financing  of  such  armed  groups  and  security  forces  in  resource-rich 
areas and avoiding related severe human rights abuses. The due diligence obligations for Union 
importers are aligned with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains 
of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas (OECD DD Guidance) and integrate 
the 5-step  framework for risk-based due diligence set  out  in the  OECD  DD  Guidance.2 The 
Regulation is designed to provide transparency and certainty as regards the supply practices of 
Union importers of 3TG, and of smelters and refiners sourcing from conflict-affected and high-
risk areas (CAHRAs). Member State competent authorities (MSCAs) are responsible for the 
uniform implementation of the Regulation and for carrying out ex-post compliance checks on 
Union importers. 

According to Article 17 (2), the Commission shall review the functioning and effectiveness of 
the Regulation by 2023 and every three years thereafter. Specifically, the review shall 

“take  into  account  the  impact  of  this  Regulation  on  the  ground,  including  on  the 
promotion  and  cost  of  responsible  sourcing  of  the  minerals  within  its  scope  from 
conflict-affected  and  high-risk  areas  and  the  impact  of  this  Regulation  on  Union 
economic operators, including SMEs, as well as the accompanying measures outlined 
in the Joint Communication of 5 March 2014. The Commission shall discuss the review 
report with the European Parliament and with the Council. The review shall include an 
independent  assessment  of  the  proportion  of  total  downstream  Union  economic 
operators with tin, tantalum, tungsten or gold  in their supply chain,  which have due 
diligence schemes in place. The review shall assess the adequacy and implementation 
of these due diligence schemes and the impact of the Union system on the ground as 
well  as  the  need  for  additional  mandatory  measures  in  order  to  ensure  sufficient 
leverage of the total Union market on the responsible global supply chain of minerals.” 

In addition to the requirements explicitly set out in Article 17, the Commission has identified 
and examined further elements linked to the coverage and scope of the Regulation, which may 
have an impact on the Regulation’s functioning and effectiveness. This Report responds to this 
requirement on the Commission to review the Regulation. It summarizes the findings of the 

1 OJ L 130, 19.5.2017, p. 1. 
2 OECD (2016), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-
Risk Areas: Third Edition, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264252479-en 

1 

 
 
 
review study and highlights key focus areas that the Commission could continuously support 
and potentially further assess in the context of the upcoming reviews. 

II.  THE FIRST REVIEW - SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

This  Report  analyses  the  effectiveness  and  functioning  of  the  Regulation  along  several 
dimensions:  (1)  The  impact  in  producing  countries3,  in  particular  on  mitigating  risks  of 
significant adverse impacts which may be associated with extracting, handling and exporting 
minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas, (2) the impact on economic operators in 
the  EU,  including  on  Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises  (SMEs),  (3)  the  evaluation  of 
accompanying measures such as the recognition of supply chain due diligence schemes and the 
impact of the indicative and non-exhaustive list of CAHRAs provided by the external expertise 
the  Commission  has  called  on  pursuant  to  Article  14  (2)  of  the  Regulation  (hereinafter  the 
CAHRA  list)4  and  (4)  additional  considerations  including  on  the  material  scope  of  the 
Regulation, the role of import volume thresholds and the interlinkages with other legislative 
initiatives covering the extractive sector. 

This  Report  has  been  supported  by  an  external  study,  inputs  from  MSCAs  via  their  annual 
reports on the implementation of the Regulation5 as well as consultations of the Commission 
with  a  broad  range  of  stakeholders.  The  findings  of  the  external  study  are  based  on  mixed 
methods consisting of an extensive literature review, analysis of secondary data, field research6, 
desk  research  and  interviews  and  workshops  with  relevant  stakeholders  including  MSCAs, 
European upstream and downstream operators, owners of due diligence schemes, miners, local 
traders, civil society and other stakeholders. The Report is based on research covering the period 
up to the first half of 2023.  

III.  REVIEW  OF  THE  FUNCTIONING  AND  EFFECTIVENESS  OF  THE 

REGULATION 

1.  Impacts on the ground in 3TG producing countries  

In 2023, the EU imported 3TG (as defined in Annex 1 of the Regulation, i.e. both metals and 
the minerals containing them) at a value of EUR 18.3 bn. The majority of imports in value terms 
consisted  of  gold  ores  and  concentrates  (71%),  followed  by  tantalum  (23%)  tin  (5%)  and 
tungsten (1%).  

In terms of quantities, total imports amounted to 26,000 tonnes, of which 45% were gold ores 
and concentrates, 37% tantalum, 15% tin and 3% tungsten (including the minerals that contain 
these metals). 

3 With “producing countries”, we refer to countries in which the extraction of 3TG minerals and ores takes place. 
4 The CAHRAs list provided by the external expertise and the information provided on the dedicated website for this list does 
not constitute an official opinion of the European Commission or the EU as to whether a specific region or area is or is not a 
CAHRA as defined in Article 2(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/821. 
5 Article 17 (1) of the Regulation.  
6 On-the-ground case studies were carried out in Colombia and Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Both countries 
feature on the CAHRA list and are key players of the 3TG market with active production of each mineral/metal, at varying 
scales.  

2 

 
 
 
 
Figure 1 - EU27 3TG imports in 2023 

Source: ESTAT Comext 
Note: Based on 8-digit CN codes as per Annex 1 of the Regulation  

As can be seen in Table 1 below, only a marginal share of direct 3TG imports originate from 
countries with areas included in the CAHRA list.  

Table 1 - Origin of EU 3TG imports in 2023 

Item Name 

Total EU 
Imports  
(1000 
EUR) 

Imports 
from 
CAHRAs  
(1000 
EUR) 

Direct 
imports 
from 
CAHRAs 
(%) 

Countries with regions 
included in the list of 
CAHRAs 

Non CAHRAs top-5 
main countries of 
origin 

Tin 

875,963 

12,808 

1.46% 

Tungsten 

282,892 

2,929 

1.04% 

Tantalum 

4,136,535 

1,616 

0.04% 

Gold ores 
and 
concentrates 

12,992,874  628,175 

4.83% 

India, Democratic Republic 
of Congo, Türkiye, 
Afghanistan, Venezuela, 
Pakistan, Ukraine, 
Zimbabwe, Nigeria, 
Philippines, Egypt, 
Colombia, Burundi 

India, Türkiye, Philippines, 
Egypt, Ukraine, Pakistan 

Venezuela, India, Ukraine, 
Türkiye, Philippines, 
Colombia, Nigeria, 
Mozambique 
India, Democratic Republic 
of Congo, Türkiye, 
Afghanistan, Venezuela, 
Pakistan, Ukraine, 
Zimbabwe, Nigeria, 
Philippines, Egypt, 
Colombia, Burundi 

Switzerland, South 
Africa, United 
Kingdom, Ecuador, 
Canada 

South Korea, Japan, 
China, USA, South 
Africa 

Indonesia, Brazil, 
China, Peru, Bolivia 

China, USA, 
Vietnam, South 
Korea, Canada 

Source: ESTAT Comext 
Note: Based on 8-digit CN codes as per Annex 1 of the Regulation  

To review the impacts of the Regulation on the ground in 3TG producing countries with a focus 
on CAHRAs, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) (Kinshasa and Kindu regions) and 
Colombia  (Bogotá  and  Medellín  regions)  were  selected  for  on-the-ground  and  in-depth 
assessment.  The  two  countries  were  selected  to  achieve  a  balance  between  relevance, 

3 

 
 
 
  
 
feasibility, and geographical representation, while ensuring coverage of all four minerals/metals 
in scope of the Regulation.  

The external study additionally examined via desk-based research the impacts in areas included 
in the CAHRAs list in Africa, Latin America and Asia - specifically in Burkina Faso, Burundi, 
Nigeria, South Sudan, Venezuela, India and Myanmar. Lastly, important 3TG transit countries, 
notably  Rwanda  and  the  United  Arab  Emirates  (UAE),  also  formed  part  of  the  desk-based 
assessment with the aim to provide a more holistic view of the global impacts of the Regulation.  

The selection of these specific countries for in-depth and desk-based assessment is not the result 
of a comparison with other countries that also have CAHRAs included in the list. 

a.  Field research in the DRC 

The DRC has been central for ‘conflict minerals’ since the concept emerged over two decades 
ago, due to its large reserves of 3TGs and the well-documented risks linked to armed conflict 
and related severe human rights abuses  along 3TG supply chains. The entire DRC is on the 
CAHRA  list.7  The  prevalence  of  artisanal  small-scale  mining  (ASM)  gives  rise  to  key 
challenges, with cooperatives often being poorly formalised and affected by significant risks 
and  abuses  in  the  form  of  forced  labour,  exploitation  by  armed  groups,  (bribery,  money 
laundering), and fraudulent misrepresentation of the origin of minerals. These risks are often 
referred to as “OECD DD Guidance - Annex II” risks8. Specifically, for gold from artisanal 
mining, there is currently no at-scale traceability programme, making it difficult to carry out 
upstream due diligence and responsibly source certified gold to reach the European market.  

Table 2- Exports of 3TG from DRC in 2022 

Item Name 

Total exports 
(1000 EUR) 

Main importing countries 

EU share 

Tin 

Tungsten 

Tantalum 

Gold ores and 
concentrates 

19,533 

3,162 

38,154 

685,084 

China, United Arab Emirates 

United Arab Emirates, Thailand, 
Malaysia, Hong Kong, EU 

Hong Kong, United Arab Emirates, 
China, Thailand, EU 

South Africa, United Arab 
Emirates, Burundi, Rwanda, 
Uganda 

0% 

3% 

7% 

0% 

Source: UN Comtrade 
Notes: based on HS6 codes as per Annex 1 of the Regulation 

The study identified some positive impacts, albeit not directly attributable to the Regulation, in 
terms of increased awareness and uptake of due diligence practices, including of the OECD DD 
Guidance on which the Regulation is based. The results of the field research however also show 
that awareness specifically of the Regulation is generally low in the DRC, with a resulting lack 

7 Cfr. Section III. 3. b.  
8 Annex II risks are defined in the OECD Due Diligence Guidance and are recognised as “significant adverse impacts which 
may be associated with extracting, trading, handling and exporting minerals” from CAHRAs”. Annex II includes: any forms 
of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; any forms of forced or compulsory labour, the worst forms of child labour; 
other gross human rights violations and abuses such as widespread sexual violence; war crimes or other serious violations of 
international humanitarian law, crimes against humanity or genocide. 

4 

 
 
 
 
of demonstrable direct impact. Nonetheless, knowledge of the OECD 5-step framework - that 
the Regulation is based on - is much more widespread. Stakeholders interviewed were aware 
of the due diligence requirements laid out by the OECD DD Guidance and the need to comply 
with the US Dodd-Frank Act9 (DFA), which focuses specifically on the DRC and neighbouring 
countries 

b.  Field research in Colombia 

Colombia is an OECD member since 2020.10 The country is home to significant gold production 
with identified links to Annex II risks such as gold production to fuel non-state armed groups, 
drug  trafficking,  and  illegal  mining.11  The  Colombian  departamentos  of  Antioquia,  Arauca, 
Bolívar, Cauca, Nariño, Norte de Santander, and Valle del Cauca are included in the CAHRA 
list. In July 2022, Colombia adopted Law 2250 which provides the domestic regulatory basis 
for  due  diligence  for  3TGs  (as  well  as  silver  and  platinum).  Moreover,  the  Colombian 
government is undertaking several initiatives that mirror the objectives of different aspects of 
the OECD DD Guidance and thus the Regulation, even if these initiatives are not explicitly and 
consistently  framed  as  due  diligence.  Formalisation  of  ASM  is  one  such  example,  as  ASM 
mining communities are particularly exposed to Annex II risks. The external study additionally 
highlighted efforts by groups like the Alliance for Responsible Mining (ARM) and the Swiss 
Better Gold Initiative to promote responsible sourcing within the Colombian ASM gold sector.  

Stakeholders consulted in Colombia pointed to the fact that identifying costs directly associated 
to the Regulation is not possible due to the low volumes of direct exports from Colombia to the 
EU.12  

Table 3- Exports of 3TG from Colombia in 2022 

Item Name 

Tin* 

Tungsten^ 

Tungsten and tin oxides 
and hydroxides 

Tantalum 

Gold ores and 
concentrates 

Total exports 
(1000 EUR) 

Main importing countries 

EU share 

3,621 

25 

87 

5 

China, Trinidad and Tobago, 
Ecuador 

Peru, Ecuador, Mexico 

EU, Panama 

Argentina 

2,976,472 

USA, EU, Free Zones, India, United 
Arab Emirates 

0% 

0% 

93% 

0% 

16% 

Source: UN Comtrade 
Notes: based on HS6 codes as per Annex 1 of the Regulation 

* Excluding tin oxides and hydroxides (CN 2825 90 85) 
^ Excluding tungsten oxides and hydroxides (CN 2825 90 40) 

 Economic Complexity trade data 

9 Section 1502 of the US Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Act of 2010 requires U.S. listed companies to disclose 
whether the use 3TGs and whether these minerals originate in the DRC or adjoining country.  
10 OECD, ‘Colombia’. 
11 Frédéric Massé & Philippe Le Billon (2017), ‘Gold mining in Colombia, post- war crime and the peace agreement with the 
FARC’, Third World Thematics. 
12 Interview with a civil society gold expert, 24 April 2023. 

5 

 
 
 
 
The results of the field work indicated limited awareness specifically of the Regulation on the 
ground  in  Colombia,  with  a  resulting  lack  of  identifiable  direct  impact.  Stakeholders 
interviewed    were,  however,  familiar  with  the  OECD  DD  Guidance  –  this  is  encouraging, 
considering the fact that one of the main aims of the Regulation is to ensure that Union 3TG 
importers perform due diligence in a manner that is consistent with the OECD DD Guidance. 
The concept of supply chain traceability has particularly been internalised in Colombia’s gold 
sector among economic operators and public authorities.  

c.  Desk-based case studies 

The external study supporting the Commission’s review pointed to the following issues in the 
countries selected for desk review. 

In  Burkina  Faso,  Annex  II  risks  identified  in  the  gold  sector  include  bribery,  fraudulent 
misrepresentation, money laundering and non-payment of taxes, direct or indirect support to 
non-state armed groups, and involvement of public security forces. Eight regions of the country 
are on the CAHRA list. During the interviews conducted for this study with key stakeholders 
in  Burkina  Faso,  there  was  limited  awareness  of  the  Regulation’s  existence.  In  terms  of 
responsible  sourcing  priorities,  most  interviewees  were  focused  on  the  issue  of  mercury 
pollution  linked  to  gold  extraction. The  interviews  conducted  suggest  that  more  outreach 
regarding  the  Regulation  would  be  necessary  to  increase  awareness  of  its  purpose  and 
functioning. The EU Delegation in Ouagadougou is supporting artisanal gold mining, including 
in the context of the Foundations for Peace project. 

Burundi is included in the CAHRA list. The formality and legality of its mining sector has 
been  negatively  affected  by  the  2019  ban  on  gold  export  for  private  traders,  which  has 
potentially  contributed  to  increased  illegal  exports  of  gold.  According  to  the  stakeholders 
consulted, currently there are only a few foreign companies operating in the country, mainly of 
Chinese and Russian origin and none are exporting directly to the EU. Furthermore, there is 
very limited availability of mining data. The study did not identify evidence of any direct impact 
of the Regulation on the ground.  

Six  federal  states  of  Nigeria  are  listed  in  the  CAHRA  list.  The  mining  sector  in  Nigeria  is 
currently nascent and characterised by relatively limited production of 3TG minerals, except 
for  tantalum.  Notably,  Nigeria  accounts  for  approximately  13 %  of  global  tantalum 
production.13  Still,  illegal  gold  mining  and  smuggling  constitute  key  Annex  II  risks  in  the 
country’s north-west regions in particular (Zamfara state). The mining sector has so far not been 
among the priority sectors of engagement of the EU partnership with Nigeria and as a result, 
there has not been direct engagements on the basis of the Regulation in the country. Indirectly 
however, through EU’s support to the Integrated National Financing Framework (INFF), and 
the related work on fiscal federalism, support is provided to the development of a framework 
for a robust minerals sector (including sector formalisation and reforming revenue generation).  

13  EITI  (2022),  ‘Mission  critical:  Strengthening  governance  of  mineral  value  chains  for  the  energy  transition’. 
https://eiti.org/documents/mission-critical, p. 99. 

6 

 
 
 
Rwanda’s primary mined natural resources are 3TG and gemstones.14 The 3T deposit belt that 
stretches from the eastern DRC through Rwanda and into Burundi accounts for 51 % of the 
global  tantalum  supply,  and  Rwanda  contributes,  according  to  its  own  statistics,  to  28 %  of 
global production, mainly in the form of concentrates.15 While no regions of Rwanda feature in 
the CAHRA list, the country is important for the mining and transit of 3TG, some of which, 
according to international sources, may have been smuggled across the border from the DRC.16 
The  EU  currently  supports  responsible  sourcing,  implementation  of  international  social  and 
environmental  protection  standards  and  the  advancement  of  the  Sustainable  Development 
Goals  in  Rwanda  through  the  Sustainable  Development  of  the  Mining  Sector  in  Rwanda 
project.17  Beyond  this  project,  no  impacts  directly  attributable  to  the  Regulation  could  be 
identified  in  Rwanda.  Nevertheless,  in  the  past  decade,  the  Rwandan  Government  has 
implemented a range of legislative initiatives and endorsed due diligence schemes for industries 
to  mitigate  negative  risks  linked  to  mining  exploration  and  processing  operations.  Such 
measures  reflect  the  broader  efforts  to  promote  due  diligence  in  the  country,  which  the 
Regulation is part of. 

Eight regions  in South Sudan are on the CAHRA  list.  Interviews  conducted in  the country 
showed  that  illegal  mining  is  widespread  in  the  gold  sector,  predominantly  carried  out  by 
unregistered artisanal miners. Additionally, there is a notable lack of transparency concerning 
the ownership of companies operating in the sector. With regard to the Regulation, no projects 
on  responsible  sourcing  or  conflict  minerals  have  so  far  been  identified  in  the  country. 
Moreover, many interviewed stakeholders asserted that due diligence and responsible sourcing 
in the gold sector do not appear to be among the government’s priorities.   

In Venezuela, there are many risks linked to the extraction of gold and the entire country is 
included in the CAHRA list. Additionally, the lack of official statistics results in high levels of 
opacity in the sector.18 According to consulted sources, large portions of Venezuelan gold are 
allegedly  smuggled  into  neighbouring  countries  such  as  Colombia,  Brazil,  Suriname,  and 
Guyana. Besides the external study, no other existing studies were found to evaluate the impact 
of the regulation in Venezuela. The study was unable to identify any efforts by the government 
to implement due diligence measures or legal changes in the mining code or any other national 
legislation as a result of the Regulation. There is some level of awareness of the Regulation 
among  academics  and  researchers  but  civil  society  organisations  as  well  as  mining  experts 
contacted were not aware of the Regulation.19 It has therefore been impossible to assess any 
impacts on the ground that would be directly attributable to the Regulation. 

India is the second largest consumer of gold (after China), reaching 774 tonnes in 2022. Due 
to insufficient domestic supply, the demand is primarily met through imports, often through the 

14 Major tin deposits have been found in Rutongo, Musha and Ntunga. Tantalum deposits are primarily located in Rutsiro, 
Muhanga, Kamonyi, etc. RMB Geological Collection. Tungsten can be found in Nyakabingo, Gifurwe and Bugarama. Gold is 
primarily mined in the northern and western provinces of Rwanda, Miyove, Nyungwe, and Birambo. Mining Africa,  
https://www.rmb.gov.rw/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=68168&token=bca415628ca0d601bb28468f283b98d21a6986c1 .  
15 Barreto et al., ‘Economic Contributions of Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining in Rwanda: Tin, Tantalum and Tungsten’.  
16 UN Security Council, Midterm report of the Group of Experts submitted in accordance with paragraph 6 of resolution 2688 
(2023), S/2023/990. 
17 Delegation of the European Union to Rwanda, ‘EU and Germany Join Forces to Boost Rwanda’s Mining Sector,’ 30 June 
2023.  
18 Wilson Center, ‘Exploiting Venezuela’s Uncertain Future’. OECD, ‘Gold Flows from Venezuela’. 
19 Interviews conducted on 30 March 2023 and 5 April 2023, respectively. 

7 

 
 
 
UAE, which poses a risk (see below more details on the concerns related to UAE responsible 
sourcing).  In  2022-2023,  local  mining  contributed  to  about  1.5 %  of  the  gold  supply,  while 
recycling accounted for around 14 %.20 The most identified risk in  the Indian gold  sector is 
smuggling, linked to non-payment of government taxes and fees and to money laundering. Two 
states – Chhattisgarh and Jammu and Kashmir  – figure on the CAHRA list. Findings of the 
external study show that there is some awareness of the Regulation in India, in particular within 
certain  organisations  present  in  the  country,  such  as  the  World  Gold  Council,  Gems  and 
Jewellery Export Promotion Council or the Indian Bullion and Jewellery Association.   

In  Myanmar,  the  tin  industry  is  fully  controlled  by  senior  junta  officials,  rendering  any 
assessment of production and trade complex. In 2021, estimates showed production of about 
29,000 tonnes per year; with more than 700,000 tonnes in reserves. This makes Myanmar the 
fourth largest tin producer and home to the third largest tin reserves worldwide.21 Most of the 
country’s production ends up in Chinese refineries. The International Tin Association identifies 
the Chinese based Yunnan Tin Company as one of the major recipients of Myanmar’s tin. 15 
of  Myanmar’s  21  administrative  areas  are  included  in  the  CAHRAs  list.  Findings  from  the 
external study suggest that there is negligible awareness of the Regulation in Myanmar, and it 
was not possible to confirm any impacts on the ground directly attributable to the Regulation. 
Most of the interviewees focused their efforts in Myanmar on the issue of political instability 
and violence and did not address due diligence requirements explicitly.  

The  UAE  is  not  a  mining  producer  of  any  of  the  minerals  covered  by  the  Regulation  but 
occupies a central place in the trade and transformation of gold. In forty years, it has gone up 
from being outside the top-100 gold importing countries to being in the top-10 nowadays, with 
imports from Africa experiencing a notable rise.22 Some stakeholders interviewed argue that 
access to any information on UAE gold trade is very difficult. There are widespread concerns 
that  requirements  for  responsible  sourcing  appear  weak,  despite  a  recent  spate  of  relevant 
initiatives. The UAE Ministry of Economy has announced new OECD-aligned due diligence 
regulations covering the gold sector to go into effect in January 2024. While impacts directly 
attributable to the Regulation could not be identified in the UAE and the country is not included 
in the CAHRAs list, the UAE plays a significant role as transit hub, in particular for gold. It is 
therefore relevant for the functioning and effectiveness of the Regulation and important for due 
diligence in the sector more generally. 

d.  Conclusions and recommendations 

The Regulation introduces supply chain due diligence obligations only on Union importers of 
3TG, and as such has no direct legal effect on entities and processes in third countries. In light 
of this, the impacts and costs in third countries of the EU Regulation are difficult to distinguish 
from those resulting from broader global efforts to promote due diligence in minerals supply 
chains. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that in the majority of third countries assessed, there are 
some efforts by many actors in the 3TG sector to implement OECD-aligned due diligence in 
line  with  the  Regulation’s  objectives.  The  requirements  of  the  Regulation  are  part  of  this 

20 Indian Gold Policy Centre, ‘8th Annual Report 2022-2023’, 26. 
21 Nicholas Gardiner et al., ‘Tin mining in Myanmar: Production and potential’, Resources Policy, December 2015. 
22 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, ‘https://carnegie-production-
assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/files/PageVittori_DubaiCorruption_final.pdf, 7 July 2020.  

8 

 
 
 
broader ecosystem of due diligence and responsible business conduct measures and can thus be 
seen as one of the tools contributing to improving due diligence in 3TG supply chains.  

The  study  identified  potential  to  improve  the  impact  of  the  Regulation  through  increased 
engagement  by  the  EU  in  3TG  producing  and  transit  countries.  The  effectiveness  and 
functioning of the Regulation could be further enhanced through increased outreach, beginning 
with outreach by EU Delegations in countries with areas included in the CAHRA list. Strong 
interest and receptivity about the Regulation were encountered across local stakeholder groups. 
Therefore, further engaging  stakeholders involved in  3TG production and trade in  countries 
with CAHRAs, where possible, presents a significant opportunity to enhance the Regulation's 
impact.  

2.  Impacts on EU economic operators 

a.  Uptake of due diligence by EU economic operators, including downstream 

operators 

The  assessment  shows  that  when  the  Regulation  entered  into  force,  Union  importers  and 
downstream operators had different levels of awareness of due diligence according to their role 
in the 3TG supply chain and company size. Engagement in 3TG international trade covered by 
the US DFA since 2010 strongly influenced companies’ awareness about the principles of due 
diligence and how to implement them.  

Many Union importers that were first introduced to due diligence through the Regulation were 
made aware of their obligations through contacts with MSCAs. A positive outcome of the study 
was the fact that companies, thanks to the contacts with MSCAs, have been gradually improving 
the implementation of their due diligence obligations under the Regulation. MSCAs highlight 
the  need  to  continue  raising  awareness  on  the  detailed  requirements  of  the  Regulation  for 
operators. While some SMEs have reported facing difficulties in carrying out external third-
party  verifications,  the  majority  of  consulted  Union  importers  within  the  scope  of  the 
Regulation’s  due  diligence  requirements  rely  on  supply  chain  due  diligence  schemes.  This 
suggests  that  any  potential  recognition  of  such  schemes  that  fulfil  the  requirements  by  the 
Commission would facilitate the compliance of importers with relevant requirements and shape 
many companies’ experiences of the Regulation (cfr. section “3. Accompanying Measures” for 
details).  

Uptake of due diligence and compliance levels of EU economic operators vary across Member 
States. The main shortcomings reported relate to lack of information on management system 
obligations  and  risk  management  obligations,  incomplete  audit  reports,  failures  regarding 
disclosure and reporting obligations and inconsistencies between reported import volumes and 
customs data. One additional key challenge faced is a general EU-wide shortage of qualified 
auditors and a lack of audits that meet the relevant requirements of the Regulation. The views 
on  the  costs  of  compliance  from  interviewees  differed  significantly.  On  the  one  hand,  due 
diligence  is  increasingly  a  mainstream  norm  in  the  metals  and  minerals  industry,  and  the 
Regulation  aligns  with  many  standard  business  practices.  On  the  other  hand,  companies 
explained  that  administrative  burdens  and  auditing  costs  of  compliance  could  be  rather 
significant, especially for SMEs. It was estimated that the costs for an audit range from EUR 

9 

 
 
8,000  to  EUR  10,000,  a  significant  expense  for  SMEs.  At  the  same  time,  companies  (and 
MSCAs, see below) suggested that a possible recognition of schemes and an eventual list of 
EU-recognised responsible smelters could lower these costs significantly.  

While  the  Regulation  lays  down  due  diligence  obligations  only  on  Union  importers  of  the 
metals and minerals as such, there are indications that economic operators further downstream 
in  the  value  chains  are  also  advancing  with  their  due  diligence  efforts.  To  undertake  an 
assessment of due diligence uptake by downstream companies, the Commission is preparing an 
online voluntary tool for downstream companies to publish information on their due diligence 
practices,  the  Responsible  Minerals  Information  System  –  ReMIS,  which  is  expected  to  be 
launched in the second half of 2024 (cfr. section “3. Accompanying Measures”).  

b.  Enforcement of the Regulation by MSCAs 

The  Regulation  requires  MSCAs  to  carry  out  "appropriate  ex-post  compliance  checks"  on 
economic  operators.  The  analysis  carried  out  for  this  review  has  shown  that  MSCAs  are 
endowed with different capacities, resources allocated, and expertise as regards raw materials, 
industrial processes and auditing.  As a result, they have varying abilities to carry out and follow 
up on ex-post checks. As a general note, after only the first round of annual ex-post compliance 
checks conducted, the findings of MSCAs are limited. Several Member States noted that more 
time is needed to gain insights regarding import patterns and potential circumventions, and to 
have a clearer picture based on relevant data.  

As per Article 17 (1) of the Regulation, by 30 June each year, Member States shall submit to 
the Commission  a report on the implementation  of the Regulation.  The latest findings  from 
MSCAs’ reports that are included in this review therefore date back to 30 June 2023 and cover 
checks carried out in 2022. It is important to note that, after only the first round of annual ex-
post compliance checks conducted, the findings of MSCAs are limited. 

The information submitted to the Commission via the annual implementation reports of MSCAs 
confirms  that  in  2021,  MSCAs  started  outreach,  awareness  sessions  for  operators  and 
preparations for ex-post checks. An increasing number of MSCAs have started carrying out ex-
post compliance checks in 2022, of which many were planned to be concluded in 2023. In total, 
the Commission received implementation reports from 22 out of the 27 Member States on 30 
June 2023.  

12 of the 22 Member States had already planned or started conducting ex post checks: Austria, 
Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Czechia,  Denmark,  Finland,  France  (pilot  checks),  Germany, 
Luxemburg, Malta and Spain. In Poland, the ex-post checks had not started, as the legislative 
basis for them in Polish National Law had not yet been put in place.23 Portugal announced it 
would commence ex-post checks in the second half of 2023. Ex-post checks in other Member 
States  had  not  been  conducted,  as  no  importers  were  identified  above  the  import  volume 
thresholds laid down in the Regulation. 

In 2022, based on the customs data provided by MS reporting information, there were 8,286 
identified Union importers of 3TG minerals and metals of which 477 (6%) imported quantities 

23 The government of Poland adopted an act on modalities of implementation of the Regulation on 12 March 2024.  

10 

 
 
 
equal to or above the annual volume thresholds. Thresholds have been set to ensure that covered 
imports  correspond  to  at  least  95%  of  the  total  volumes  of  3TG  imported  into  the  EU  (cfr. 
section III. 4. b). There is a wide variation among Member States as regards the numbers of 
importers that fall within the scope of the Regulation.  

Findings confirm that the level of compliance strongly varies, and some Member States have 
not reported any conclusive findings of their ex-post compliance checks because of multiple 
reasons, including the ongoing development of their internal auditing system, assignment of a 
competent authority, or due to the fact that they had only recently received the relevant customs 
data from their customs authorities.  

In  terms  of  implementation  by  MSCAs,  both  the  external  study,  as  well  as  the  annual 
implementation reports of MSCAs point to a number of challenges. Member States reported 
that  the  majority  of  Union  importers  within  the  scope  of  the  Regulation’s  due  diligence 
requirements rely on supply chain due diligence schemes which can facilitate their compliance 
with  the  Regulation.  However,  this  facilitating  element  is  not  applicable  yet  given  that  the 
Commission has not recognised any scheme to date (cfr. Section III 3 a). Another challenge 
raised in particular by smaller Member States is the lack of capacity and resources of MSCAs 
to enforce the Regulation. MSCAs have expressed their support for further exchanges of best 
practices and coordination among them. MSCAs have also highlighted a number of risks related 
to Union imports of gold (cfr. section III 4. e.), as well as challenges to traceability posed by 
materials in recycled form or finished products, which currently fall outside the scope of the 
Regulation,  especially  in  the  gold  sector,  where  recycling  may  be  associated  with  conflict 
materials.  

Member States remain responsible for the uniform implementation of the Regulation, as per 
Article  10  (3).  To  facilitate  the  exchanges  among  Member  States  and  support  a  uniform 
implementation of the Regulation, the Commission has introduced relevant tools, notably the 
quarterly Expert Group Meetings on the Responsible Sourcing of Tin, Tantalum, Tungsten and 
Gold (3TG Expert Group), as well as the ongoing work on setting up a platform for the secured 
exchange of relevant customs data among Member States (Responsible Minerals Monitoring 
System).  The  external  review  study  has  identified  the  3TG  Expert  Group  as  an  effective 
platform  for  MSCAs  and  the  Commission  to  meet,  exchange  information  and  increase 
convergence in enforcement.  

The ongoing work on a platform for the exchange of customs data, currently in the pilot phase, 
can  support  the  exchanges  of  Member  States  aiming  at  monitoring  and  preventing 
circumventing practices by Union importers. Specifically, the platform will allow MS to share 
and consult the importing company-related customs information for the minerals and metals 
covered by the Regulation to minimise the risk that importers split shipments and import via 
different Member States to remain under the applicable import volume thresholds imposed by 
the Regulation.  

11 

 
 
 
 
3.  Accompanying measures to the Regulation  

This  section  examines  the  functioning  and  effectiveness  of  the  various  tools  supporting  the 
implementation of the Regulation. These tools are listed in the table below.  

Table 4 - Overview of tools supporting the implementation of the Regulation 

Tools supporting implementation 

Reference in the Regulation / Description 

a.  Supply Chain Due Diligence Schemes and 
The  List  of  Responsible  Smelters  and 
Refiners (“EU White List”) 

Recital  14  and  Article  8  of  the  Regulation, 
Recital 16 and Article 9 of the Regulation 

b.  List  of  Conflict-Affected  and  High-Risk 

Areas (CAHRAs list) 

c.  European  Partnership  for  Responsible 

Minerals (EPRM) 

d.  Other  measures  outlined  in  the  Joint 

Communication of 5 March 201424 

e.  Responsible  Minerals 

Information 

System (ReMIS) 

Article 14 (2) of the Regulation; Commission 
Recommendation  (EU)  2018/1149  of  10 
August  2018;  Methodology 
list 
developed  and  regularly  updated  by  RAND 
Europe: CAHRAs (cahraslist.net) 

and 

Launched  in  2016  as  a  multi-stakeholder 
initiative  undertaking  projects  in  the  3TG 
ASM  sector.  Forum  between 
industry, 
governments and civil society. 
https://europeanpartnership-
responsibleminerals.eu/  

Diplomacy, 

Policy  dialogues  with  third  countries,  Raw 
Development 
Materials 
Cooperation with third countries. 
Since  2021,  Strategic  Raw  Material 
Partnerships with third countries25. 

Online  voluntary 
for  downstream 
tool 
companies  to  publish  information  on  their 
due diligence practices.  
The tool is technically ready to be launched 
and 
is  finalising  data 
protection arrangements with Member States 
before making ReMIS publicly available. 

the  Commission 

f.  Due Diligence Ready! portal 

With a focus specifically on SMEs, the Due 
Diligence  Ready!  tool  developed  by  the 
Commission  is  operational  and  used  as  a 
of 
supporting 
in 
understanding 
due 
and 
diligence. The portal supports SMEs to:  

implementing 

efforts 

tool 

the 

• 

learn about the benefits they can gain 
from performing due diligence on 
their supply chains 

24  JOINT  COMMUNICATION  TO  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  THE  COUNCIL  Responsible  sourcing  of 
minerals originating in conflict-affected and high-risk areas Towards an integrated EU approach, JOIN/2014/08 final. 
25 Raw materials diplomacy - European Commission (europa.eu) 
12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  understand, assess and mitigate risks 
and impacts in their supply chains 
related to responsible sourcing 
•  understand and implement the 

OECD DD Guidance and learn how 
to do due diligence for responsible 
mineral sourcing (the OECD DD 
Guidance applies to all minerals. 

Research  and  stakeholders  interviewed  did 
point  to  the  need  for  more  step-by-step  and 
targeted support through the tool. 
https://single-market-
economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/raw-
materials/due-diligence-ready_en  

a.  Recognition of due diligence schemes and EU “White List” 

The Regulation recognizes that due diligence schemes can facilitate the compliance of Union 
importers with the Regulation’s requirements. According to Articles 3 and 8, the Commission 
shall  adopt  implementing  acts  recognising  supply  chain  due  diligence  schemes  based  on 
applications  from  scheme  owners.  The  process  for  the  assessment  and  criteria  for  potential 
recognition  of  schemes  is  outlined  in  a  Delegated  Regulation26,  which  is  based  on  the 
methodology developed by the OECD to assess due diligence schemes for minerals, thereby 
ensuring that such schemes effectively meet the standards of the Regulation.  

Currently, five schemes are in the process of being assessed for recognition, with no scheme 
recognized to date. The assessments are based on in-depth documentation review, interviews 
with stakeholders involved with the schemes and on-the-spot verification, so-called “shadow 
audits”.  They  examine  both  the  policies  and  standards  of  the  schemes  and  how  they  are 
implemented.  The  schedule  for  assessments,  and  in  particular  for  the  shadow  audits”,  was 
heavily impacted by the Covid19  pandemic, resulting in delays in the assessment processes. 
The necessary stringency of criteria, the various steps of the procedure and the need to carry 
out thorough assessments as well as the possibility of reapplication, are also determining factors 
for the duration of the recognition process.  

Interviews with companies confirm that many of them are already members of schemes or align 
their  practices  to  these  schemes,  even  though  they  are  not  yet  recognized.  While  some 
stakeholders have mentioned the cost of due diligence schemes as a potential limiting factor for 
compliance, the estimated costs appear to be financially proportionate for many actors.  

Additionally, some stakeholders have flagged the importance of transparency of the schemes. 
Schemes can facilitate  access  to  information  on the materials’ origin to  confirm  compliance 
with the legal obligations of the Regulation. Nevertheless, in the majority of ex-post checks 
conducted by MSCAs on Union importers participating in supply chain due diligence schemes, 
the importers could not provide the authorities with information on the country of origin, as is 

26  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2019/429  of 11  January  2019  supplementing  Regulation  (EU)  2017/821  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council as regards the methodology and criteria for the assessment and recognition of supply 
chain due diligence schemes concerning tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold, OJ L 75, 19.3.2019, p. 59–65. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
required by Article 4 of the Regulation. Closer engagement and exchange between MSCAs, 
Union importers and schemes with regard to these transparency challenges should be further 
encouraged.  

It is important to flag that, notwithstanding the recognition of schemes as a tool to facilitate 
implementation,  Union  importers  retain  the  individual  responsibility  to  comply  with  the 
requirements  of  the  regulation  irrespective  of  whether  they  are  part  of  recognized  schemes. 
Hence, the schemes can be tools to facilitate the compliance by Union importers, but do not 
relieve them from their individual responsibility to conduct due diligence. 

The Regulation provides that the Commission shall adopt an implementing act establishing a 
list of responsible smelters and refiners as per Article 9 of the Regulation. To draw up the list, 
the  Commission  shall  take  into  account  smelters  and  refiners  covered  by  recognised  due 
diligence schemes, as well as information provided by Member States. As no schemes have 
been recognised to date, the EU list has not yet been drawn up. 

b.  The CAHRAs list 

The Regulation foresees assistance to economic operators in identifying CAHRAs. Pursuant to 
Article  14,  the  European  Commission  has  developed  non-binding  guidelines  for  the 
identification of CAHRAs and other supply chain risks.27 It has also tasked RAND Europe to 
provide external expertise in the form of a methodology to determine countries to be placed on 
the  CAHRA  list,  and  to  provide  an  indicative,  non-exhaustive  and  regularly  updated  list  of 
conflict-affected and high-risk areas.28 As already underscored in footnote 4 above, the CAHRA 
list provided by the external expertise (and the information provided on the dedicated website 
for this list) does not constitute an official opinion of the European Commission or the EU as 
to whether a specific region or area is or is not a CAHRA as defined in Article 2(f) of Regulation 
(EU)  2017/821.  Nevertheless,  the  CAHRA  list  serves  as  an  operational  tool  to  guide  risk 
mitigation efforts and enable companies to apply due diligence in line with the EU Regulation. 

The inclusion of an area as conflict-affected and/or high-risk in the list does not prohibit, imply, 
or  suggest  that  business  activities  should  not  be  conducted  in  this  area.  The  list  enables 
companies to identify those areas where they should conduct risk-based due diligence in order 
to source or continue sourcing 3TGs with the help of due diligence company processes. 

Companies interviewed in the context of the external study confirm the CAHRAs list is a useful 
tool to assess risks of regional conflicts. Some respondents report using it together with other 
lists for CAHRAs such as the one produced by the Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI). Other 
stakeholders suggested that awareness of the list could be improved. Interviews also confirm 
that it is important to continue emphasizing the indicative non-exhaustive nature of the list. In 
terms of the content of the list, some stakeholders have suggested considering technical changes 
including the frequency of the update and updates to the methodology to refine the geographical 
areas, as well as to consider the inclusion of transit countries in the list.   

27  Commission  Recommendation  (EU)  2018/1149  of  10  August  2018  on  non-binding  guidelines  for  the  identification  of 
conflict-affected and high-risk areas and other supply chain risks under Regulation (EU) 2017/821 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council, OJ L 208, 17.8.2018, p. 94–106. 
28 The list is available on https://www.cahraslist.net/. 

14 

 
 
 
c.  The European Partnership for Responsible Minerals (EPRM) 

The European Partnership for Responsible Minerals (EPRM) was launched in 2016 to support 
the  implementation  of  the  upcoming  Regulation  through  i)  responsible  production,  ii) 
responsible  sourcing,  and  iii)  linking  production  and  sourcing.  The  EPRM,  predominantly 
funded by the European Commission and some Member States, is a multi-stakeholder initiative 
and  functions  as  a  forum  between  industry,  governments  and  civil  society.  It  aims  to  build 
capacity on due diligence practices across the 3TG supply chain. 

The EPRM has two main objectives. The first is to support SMEs in performing due diligence, 
through  tools  such  as  the  “Due  Diligence  Check”  providing  a  questionnaire  to  assess 
companies’ alignment with the OECD DD Guidance and offering concrete advice to improve 
practices and the “Due Diligence Hub” providing tailored information to perform due diligence. 
The second objective is  to  support ASM  to  produce more responsibly and accessing formal 
markets  at  national  and  international  levels.  To  that  end,  the  EPRM  finances  projects  in 
CAHRAs and aims at building best practices and collaboration along 3TG supply chain actors 
to strengthen responsible practices.29  

Over  the  years,  the  EPRM  has  built  due  diligence  knowledge,  provided  a  forum  for  multi-
stakeholder discussions, and confirmed the added-value of support to upstream due diligence 
via on-the-ground projects. The delivery of results, in particular since 2021, has significantly 
increased. The partnership also appears to be better aligned with EU priorities.  

Areas for further improvement include the need to increase the membership basis, diversify its 
funding sources, increase outreach to producing countries, strengthen the focus on sustainability 
and  improve  its  monitoring  and  evaluation  capacity  of  its  own  activities.  Stakeholder 
consultations also highlight the opportunity to facilitate the application process to EPRM grant 
funding for civil society organisations and stakeholders from CAHRAs, to further train local 
supply  chain  actors  in  CAHRAs  on  due  diligence  mechanisms,  possibly  jointly  with 
collaborative industry schemes, and to  expand linkages  between beneficiaries  and economic 
operators.  

d.  Other measures outlined in the Joint Communication of 5 March 2014 – Raw 

Materials Diplomacy 

With  regard  to  Raw  Materials  Diplomacy  and  development  cooperation  beyond  existing 
programmes such as the EPRM, the EU has carried out many activities supporting sustainable 
development  of  the  mining  sector  in  partner  countries.  Tantalum  and  tungsten,  two  of  the 
materials  covered  by  the  Regulation,  also  feature  on  the  EU  list  of  Critical  Raw  Materials 
(CRMs) and are therefore within the scope of broader EU efforts in the field of CRMs. One key 
example of such efforts, forming part of the external dimension of the Critical Raw Materials 

29 During the period 2017-2020, the EPRM awarded 18 grants or other forms of project subsidies with a total expenditure of 
€6  million.  Three  additional  pilot  projects  were  selected  and  started  implementation  in  early  2022,  with  a  further  Call  for 
Proposal launched in the summer of 2023. 

15 

 
 
 
Act30 is the work on concluding Strategic Partnerships on raw materials value chains between 
the European Union and third countries.  

Such  Partnerships  are  based  on  a  bilateral  and  non-binding  Memorandum  of  Understanding 
(MoU) and a roadmap of concrete actions to be agreed within six months from the conclusion 
of  the  MoU.  The  key  pillars  of  these  MoUs  aim  at  promoting  environmental,  social  and 
governance (ESG) standards and responsible mining practices, mobilizing funding for relevant 
infrastructure, building capacity, cooperating on research and innovation and integrating raw 
materials value chains by fostering business engagement and sustainable investments.  

To date, the EU has already signed Partnerships with Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, the 
Democratic  Republic  of  the  Congo,  Greenland,  Kazakhstan,  Namibia,  Norway,  Rwanda, 
Ukraine,  Uzbekistan,  and  Zambia,  with  further  Partnerships,  notably  with  other  African 
countries, in the pipeline.  

This work on Strategic Partnerships is complementary to the aims of the Joint Communication 
of 5 March 2014 and the Critical Raw Materials Act, going hand in hand with the objective of 
promoting  responsible  sourcing  of  raw  materials.  This  work  is  also  supported  whenever 
appropriate by political dialogues that the EU maintains with countries of relevance from the 
perspective of responsible minerals value chains. 

e.  The Responsible Minerals Information System (ReMIS) 

While  the  Regulation  does  not  lay  down  binding  due  diligence  obligations  for  downstream 
economic  operators,  the  Commission  shall  evaluate  the  uptake  of  due  diligence  by  those 
operators (Article 17 (2) of the Regulation). To undertake this assessment, the Commission is 
setting up the Responsible Minerals Information System – ReMIS. This is an online voluntary 
tool for downstream companies to publish information on their due diligence practices. ReMIS 
is  technically  ready  to  be  launched  and  the  Commission  is  finalising  data  protection 
arrangements  with  Member  States.  As  ReMIS  has  not  been  launched  yet,  it  has  not  been 
possible  for  this  first  review  to  comprehensively  undertake  an  assessment  of  due  diligence 
uptake by downstream companies. 

f.  The “Due Diligence Ready!” portal 

The  Commission  has  specifically  developed  the  “Due  Diligence  Ready!”31  portal  to  help 
companies source minerals and metals responsibly and, if applicable, comply with regulatory 
requirements, including Regulation (EU) 2017/821. The portal provides general information32 
on due diligence obligations as well as a set of tools33 to help with the due diligence workflow. 
It also delivers Webinars and PowerPoint training material34 for download in seven languages 
(English,  French,  German,  Italian,  Polish,  Portuguese  and  Spanish).  Additionally,  the  portal 
offers (recorded) training material, among others based on a virtual session hosted in June 2023, 

30 COM(2023)160 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:903d35cc-c4a2-11ed-a05c-
01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF  
31 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/raw-materials/due-diligence-ready_en  
32 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/raw-materials/due-diligence-ready/about_en  
33 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/raw-materials/due-diligence-ready/due-diligence-
toolbox_en  
34 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/raw-materials/due-diligence-ready/training-and-events_en  
16 

 
 
 
addressed to SMEs in Europe and industry associations. The objective of that virtual training 
session was to:  

•  Set the context of the EU Regulation looking at objectives, scope and state of play. 
•  Provide practical guidance to SMEs to implement due diligence in their own companies.  
•  Focus recommendations to the context of SMEs in Europe, who most likely have to deal 

with limited resources to implement due diligence practices. 

•  Remind  companies  of  the  tools  available  in  the  sector  to  support,  and  that  the  DDR 
portal aims at collecting them in one place for companies to access easily. It should also 
remind the SMEs advisory service where companies can turn to for questions. 
A free email advice35 service was launched in February 2023, through which project experts 
have  been  available  to  explain  and  guide  SMEs  importing  3TGs  on  how  to  implement  the 
Regulation. This email advisory has been available also in seven languages.  

Research conducted for the purposes of the external study on the review of the Regulation, as 
well  as  stakeholders  interviewed,  pointed  specifically  to  the  importance  of  targeted  support 
through the tool, which is undergoing continuous improvements and updates.  

4.  Additional  elements  of  the  review  that  may  impact  the  effectiveness  of  the 

Regulation  

In addition  to  the elements  explicitly  prescribed by the review article of the Regulation,  the 
review  examined  further  issues  that  may  impact  the  functioning  and  effectiveness  of  the 
Regulation. These include an assessment with regard to the existing coverage of the Regulation 
(risks related to thresholds and to illicit trade in gold), the scope in terms of minerals and risks 
covered  by  the  due  diligence  obligations,  as  well  as  the  possible  interlinkages  with  other 
relevant EU legislation in the extractive sector (Batteries Regulation, Critical Raw Materials 
Act, Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive). 

Import volume thresholds 

The Regulation has a global scope, i.e. any importer of 3TG irrespective of origin with an annual 
import volume that exceeds the thresholds established in Annex I is subject to the due diligence 
obligations. Importers who fall below these thresholds do not have a legal obligation under the 
Regulation, but are encouraged to carry out due diligence on a voluntary basis. The thresholds 
in the Annex have been set to ensure that covered imports correspond to at least 95% of the 
total volumes of 3TG imported into the EU, so that the overwhelming majority of imports is 
covered  by  the  due  diligence  requirements  while  at  the  same  time  avoiding  unwarranted 
administrative burden on SMEs and low-volume importers. 

While the external study concludes that the thresholds can effectively achieve the objective of 
relieving  SMEs  from  excessive  administrative  burden,  concerns  have  been  raised  by 
stakeholders  that  the  existing  thresholds  may  result  in  circumvention  practices  by  Union 
importers.  In  addition,  some  stakeholders  expressed  concern  that  the  established  thresholds 
exclude high-risk imports, exempting them from due diligence requirements. This concern is 

35  https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/raw-materials/due-diligence-ready/about_en#free-email-
advisory  

17 

 
 
 
 
particularly  relevant  in  the  case  of  gold,  considering  the  potentially  high  monetary  value  of 
small volume imports that fall below the thresholds, as well as the fact that high-risk imports 
could also be associated with relatively low import quantities.  

These  issues  require  careful  monitoring.  However,  there  is  currently  no  clear  evidence  of 
circumventing  practices  (e.g.  dividing  imports  across  several  importers  to  remain  below  the 
thresholds)  identified  by  the  external  study  or  reported  to  the  Commission  by  MSCAs.  The 
Commission and Member States are working closely to ensure continuous monitoring of import 
patterns. The Commission is notably preparing an IT tool, the Responsible Minerals Monitoring 
Tool (RMT), an online platform that would allow a secure exchange of customs data among 
MSCAs.  

In view of the lack of adequate data to date, the study concluded that it is premature to consider 
modifying the thresholds or revising the threshold calculation methodology.  Implementation 
efforts will therefore focus on facilitating information exchange between MSCAs with a view 
to enhancing monitoring capacities and quantitative insights on direct and indirect trade data, 
investment and profit-sharing trends; thereby enabling a deeper analysis of the potential impact 
of the thresholds in the future.  

Illicit trade in gold 

The  Regulation  recognises  that  illicit  trade  indirectly  links  consumers  to  conflicts  that  have 
severe impacts on human rights outside the EU. The external study highlights that transit hubs 
play a role in global supply chains of 3TG by linking potential illicitly sourced and traded gold 
to the EU market. 

The  issue  of  illicit  trade,  especially  for  gold  given  its  inherent  characteristics,  is  extremely 
complex  and  multi-dimensional.  Due  diligence  is  one  of  the  tools  available  in  international 
efforts to combat smuggling. In this regard, there are instruments such as due diligence schemes 
and  traceability  mechanisms  to  help  address  risks  of  illicit  trading  at  different  stages  of  the 
supply chain. Tools within the Regulation’s framework can play a positive role to tackle illicit 
trade to the EU. For example, the inclusion of cross-border transit countries and other hubs of 
imported minerals and metals from CAHRAs in the CAHRA list could contribute to a more 
thorough assessment of the metals/minerals’ origin by buyers.  

Material scope  

The Regulation lays down due diligence obligations for four minerals and metals: tin, tantalum, 
tungsten and gold. The reason behind this choice at the time of adoption of the Regulation is 
threefold. First, 3TG are the four minerals that are most often associated with armed conflicts 
and related human rights abuses. Secondly, the Regulation draws on well-established principles 
of the OECD DD Guidance. While the Guidance applies in principle to all minerals, it includes 
two supplements specifically on 3TG, tailored to the challenges associated with the structure of 
the supply chains of these four minerals. Thirdly, the scope of the Regulation is aligned  with 
efforts of other partners – for instance, the US also has legislation on conflict minerals: Section 
1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Act of 2010 covers the same four 
products,  although  with  a  narrower  geographical  scope  (as  it  focuses  on  the  DRC  and 
neighbouring countries). 

18 

 
 
Beyond 3TG, other minerals and metals that are critical for the green and digital transitions may 
be associated with conflict-related risks, due to their current and projected large demand and 
the fact that major deposits exist in socially and/or environmentally fragile regions. For this 
reason, the review has sought to analyse whether bringing other minerals/metals under the scope 
of the Regulation would be necessary to fulfil the objective of preventing the financing of armed 
groups  and  security  forces  in  resource  rich  CAHRAs.  Specifically,  the  external  study  has 
assessed cobalt, copper, lithium and nickel in terms of their production structure and exposure 
to  comparable  risks  as  3TG.  These  four  minerals  feature  in  the  EU’s  list  of  critical  raw 
materials, with copper, lithium and nickel also considered as strategic raw materials36. They are 
therefore within the scope of the Critical Raw Materials Act. Furthermore, cobalt, lithium and 
nickel are within the scope of the Batteries Regulation and hence covered by the due diligence 
requirements enshrined therein. 

Cobalt  is  a  versatile  metal  used  in  various  applications,  including  batteries  as  well  as  the 
aerospace, defence and medical sectors. The DRC supplies more than 70% of the global market. 
The mineral is extracted primarily as a by-product of large-scale copper mining in the southern 
provinces of Haut-Katanga and Lualaba that do not face the significant presence of non-state 
armed groups. China controls 70% of the global processing of cobalt intermediates37 and it is 
well-represented in the mining of cobalt with 15 of the 19 industrial operations controlled by 
Chinese interests, while artisanal mining production is also largely bought by Chinese refiners, 
including Huayou Cobalt.38 The majority of the cobalt supply is used in the manufacturing of 
batteries,  especially  for  lithium-ion  batteries,  used  in  consumer  electronics,  electric  vehicles 
and energy storage systems.  

Copper is a metal widely used in electrical equipment, construction, industrial machinery, and 
alloys.  Chile  dominates  copper  production,  with  immense  industrial  operations  such  as  the 
Escondida  or  Andina  mines.  Currently,  Peru,  Indonesia  and  Mongolia  are  in  the  process  of 
opening new mines39, while the DRC is estimated to become the second global copper producer 
by 2026.40  Being a primary metal, the extraction of copper is often linked to the extraction of 
cobalt, as is the case in the DRC Copperbelt. While most extraction of copper ore is through 
large scale mining, artisanal production of copper also exists as miners often oscillate between 
copper and cobalt depending on global prices. 

Lithium is a lightweight metal used in lithium-ion batteries, particularly for electric vehicles.41 
Lithium is also used in alloys, glass, ceramics, lubricants and pharmaceuticals. It is primarily 
found  in  igneous  rocks  (spodumene)  and  mineral  springs  (brines),  with  the  majority  of  its 
production coming from Australia and Chile. The global lithium reserves are dominated by a 
few countries, including  Chile, Argentina and Bolivia.42 Mining lithium requires large-scale 
mechanised extraction due to low-grade deposits, making it less suitable for artisanal and small-

36 Critical raw materials - European Commission (europa.eu) 
37 Andrew Gulley, (2022) ‘One hundred years of cobalt production in the Democratic Republic of the Congo’. Resources Policy 
79: 103007; IEA (2021) ‘The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions.’  
38 Dionne Searcey, Michael Forsythe, and Eric Lipton, ‘A Power Struggle Over Cobalt Rattles the Clean Energy Revolution’, 
New York Times, 20 November 2021.  
39 World Economic Forum (2022), ‘Which countries produce the most copper’.  
40 Reuters  (2023) ‘Congo could seize Peru's No. 2 copper spot as Andean output slows’.  
41 World Economic Forum. 2023. This chart shows which countries produce the most lithium.  
42 Natural Resources Canada. n.d., ‘Lithium Facts.’  

19 

 
 
 
scale mining. However, with significant recent discoveries in the DRC43 and Zimbabwe,44 an 
artisanal mining sector is developing in these countries. 

Nickel  is  a  widely  used  metallic  element,  crucial  for  plant  growth  and  commonly  found  in 
stainless  steel  and  electric  vehicle  batteries.  Currently,  nickel  is  predominantly  mined  in 
industrial settings in Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia and the French overseas territory of New 
Caledonia.45 Artisanal mining of nickel has been noted in the Philippines and Indonesia. No 
studies  point  to  a  systemic  use  of  nickel  proceeds  in  funding  armed  groups.  Nickel  mining 
requires significant investment and mechanised processes, thereby limiting artisanal mining.  

While due diligence of supply  and value chains  is  highly relevant  also  for other metals  and 
minerals, it is not advisable to expand the scope of the Regulation at this stage for two main 
reasons. First, the other minerals/metals are characterized by different challenges in terms of 
production structure (predominantly by large-scale mining), value chain linkages and possible 
associated  risks.  Second,  other  pieces  of  legislation  apply  (or  will  apply)  to  these  other 
minerals/metals - notably the Batteries Regulation and the Directive on Corporate Sustainability 
Due Diligence (cfr. section below). In particular, the Batteries Regulation in its Annex X lists 
the risk categories and the internationally recognised due diligence instruments applicable to 
the due diligence requirements laid down in the Batteries Regulation and covering specifically 
cobalt, nickel, natural graphite and lithium. These categories include human rights, such as child 
and forced labour (Annex X, point 2 (b)). The OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible 
Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas is also listed under 
point 4 (f) as one of the relevant internationally recognised instruments applicable. Therefore, 
while the material scope of the two Regulations does not overlap, the due diligence obligations 
in both instruments address the OECD DD Guidance’s Annex II risks. 

Adding further metals to the scope of the Regulation could therefore duplicate requirements in 
other Union legislation and risk making the regulatory landscape for economic actors complex 
and creating confusion on the ways in which minerals due diligence should be conducted. As a 
result, the priority for the time being should be continued progress towards implementation of 
the  Regulation  in  its  current  form,  paying  particular  attention  -also  in  the  context  of  future 
reviews of this Regulation and of other due diligence legislation- to how to ensure continued 
complementarity  and  interoperability  of  the  various  pieces  of  EU  due  diligence  legislation 
relevant in this context.  

Risks covered 

In  terms  of  risks  covered  by  the  due  diligence  obligations,  the  Regulation  covers  risks 
associated  with  armed  conflict  and  related  human  rights  abuses  in  line  with  the  OECD  DD 
Guidance and its Annex II (“serious abuses associated with the extraction, transport or trade of 
minerals”). Environmental risks are neither covered by the Regulation nor by the OECD DD 
Guidance. However, there are identifiable links between the environmental impact of mining 
and  armed  conflict.  On  the  one  hand,  state  and  non-state  armed  groups’  interference  with 
mining activities may have negative environmental impacts. On the other hand, conflict may 

43 Resource World Magazine, ‘Tantalex Lithium’s Titan plant construction 80% complete, DRC’, 2023. 
44 Reuters, ‘Premier African Minerals completes Zimbabwe lithium plant, production imminent’ , 2023. 
45 Natural Resources Canada. n.d. ‘Nickel facts.’  

20 

 
 
 
 
arise  from  environmental  deterioration  caused  by  3TG  activities,  including  issues  such  as 
population  displacement,  soil  degradation,  limited  access  to  food,  and  compromised  water 
availability.  

Such links between the environment and conflict could play a role vis-à-vis the effectiveness 
of the Regulation, as environmental due diligence could potentially contribute to one of the key 
objectives of the Regulation, decoupling 3TG trade from armed conflict. At the same time,  the 
Directive on Corporate  Sustainability Due Diligence  (CSDDD) (when in  force)  will  already 
extend  due  diligence  obligations  to  environmental  aspects.  As  such,  many  EU  operators 
throughout  minerals  supply  chains,  will  need  to  conduct  environmental  due  diligence. 
Furthermore, at present, the Regulation is based on the OECD DD Guidance. Therefore, adding 
environmental due diligence under the Regulation (which is currently not covered by the OECD 
DD Guidance) could risk making the regulatory landscape for economic actors more complex  
and,  given  other  Union  legislation,  create  confusion  on  the  ways  in  which  minerals  due 
diligence should be conducted. As a result, the priority for the time being should be continued 
progress towards implementation of the Regulation in its current form. 

Coherence between the Regulation and other EU legislation 

The Regulation is the first supply chain due diligence-focused EU legislation. Since the entry 
into force of the Regulation, several legislative initiatives have been developed that can interact 
with  its  objective,  scope  and  focus  to  various  degrees.  The  table  below  compares  the 
geographical,  material  and  corporate  coverage,  the  due  diligence  obligations,  the  role  of 
schemes  recognition  and  liabilities  of  the  Regulation  with  the  CSDDD,  the  Batteries 
Regulation, the Regulation Establishing a Framework for Setting Ecodesign Requirements for 
Sustainable Products (ESPR), the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) and the Regulation on 
Prohibiting  Products  Made  with  Forced  Labour  on  the  Union  market  (Forced  Labour 
Regulation).  

An important common element is the geographical coverage as all these legislative instruments 
have a potential global reach (despite the Regulation’s specific focus on CAHRAs). In terms of 
material coverage, the Batteries Regulation, like this Regulation, applies to a narrow scope of 
products/minerals but there is no overlap between the two. The CRMA identifies tantalum and 
tungsten as critical raw materials in its Annex II. The other instruments, notably the CSDDD, 
do not define a limited material coverage but rather apply horizontally. In terms of the corporate 
coverage, i.e. the economic operators subject to the requirements, horizontal instruments such 
as the CSDDD will apply to large economic actors, while the entities subject to the requirements 
in the Regulation are defined by its specific material focus and the import volume thresholds 
(which also imply specific flexibilities targeted at SMEs while not explicitly excluding them 
from the scope).  

In  terms  of  due  diligence  requirements,  the  Regulation  has  a  targeted  approach  (i.e.  due 
diligence is required to be carried out with a view to ensuring that supply chains do not finance 
armed conflict and related human rights abuses), aligned with the OECD DD Guidance. The 
CSDDD’s  and  the  Batteries Regulation’s due diligence requirements are more extensive as 
they also cover environmental issues, as  well as social and human right risks more broadly. 

21 

 
 
 
 
Neither  the  CRMA,  the  ESPR  nor  the  Forced  Labour  Regulation  impose  due  diligence 
obligations.  

In terms of recognition of schemes, the Regulation, the CRMA and the Batteries Regulation 
provide for this possibility. The schemes that are currently under assessment in the context of 
the Regulation (cfr. Section III 3.a.) cover specifically 3TGs.  

Table 5 - Comparison between Regulation and other relevant legislative initiatives 

Regulation 

CSDDD  

Batteries 
Regulation 

ESPR 

CRMA 

Forced 
Labour 
Regulation 

Geographical 
Coverage 

Global with 
focus on 
CAHRAs 

Global 

Material 
Coverage 

3TG 

Horizontal 

Corporate 
Coverage 

Importers of 
3TG according 
to established 
thresholds 

Economic actors > 
1000 employees 
and annual 
turnover of > EUR 
450 M 

Global with some 
focus on CAHRAs 

Cobalt, lithium, 
nickel, natural 
graphite 

For due diligence 
obligations: 
Economic 
operators placing 
or putting into 
service batteries on 
the EU market and 
with annual 
turnover ≥ EUR 40 
M  

Global  

Global 

Global 

34 CRM in 
Annex II 
including 
tantalum and 
tungsten 

Horizontal 

Not 
applicable 

Horizontal 

Cross-cutting 
with some 
product 
limitations 

All companies, 
with exemption 
from 
obligations on 
destruction of 
unsold 
consumer 
products for 
small and 
micro 
enterprises 

Due Diligence 
Obligations 

Risks and 
adverse 
impacts 
associated with 
conflict and 
related human 
rights abuses 

Human rights and 
environmental 

Social, human 
rights and 
environmental  

Not applicable 

Not 
applicable 

Not applicable 

Recognition of 
schemes 

Yes 

No 

Liabilities 

Member States 
determine rules 
applicable to 
infringements 

Member States to 
determine 
administrative 
penalties for non-
compliance and 
civil liability in 
case of harm to 
rightsholders 

Not applicable   Yes 

Not applicable 

Member States 
determine 
sanctions 

Not 
applicable 

Market bans on 
products; 
Member States 
to determine 
penalties for 
non-
compliance 
with bans  

Yes (methodology 
not yet 
determined) 

Member States to 
determine 
penalties for non-
compliance; 
restriction of the 
sale of batteries as 
last resort  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In sum, on the one hand the Regulation requires the implementation of due diligence for a quite 
narrow set of minerals and metals, and a specific set of risks. On the other hand, some of the 
EU’s  recently  adopted  regulatory  frameworks  already  (or  will  soon)  extend  due  diligence 
throughout the value chain to address a wide range of products and socio-economic, worker 
safety and environmental issues, and thereby help to ensure secure and sustainable EU supply 
and value chains of critical minerals and beyond. Some of these regulations partially interact 
with the Regulation in terms of material scope, corporate coverage and requirements. However, 
in  its  present  scope,  the  interaction  is  limited,  often  complementary  and  does  not  appear  to 
represent a significant additional regulatory burden on minerals due diligence efforts within the 
EU regulatory framework. 

IV.  CONCLUSION  

With only two years since the operational due diligence requirements of the Regulation started 
applying, this first mandatory review comes at a very early stage in the implementation of the 
Regulation. The  full  roll-out,  implementation  and  enforcement  of  the  various  aspects  of  the 
Regulation and accompanying measures has faced some additional delays due to e.g. the Covid-
19  pandemic  and  other  implementation  challenges  that  will  continuously  be  addressed  in 
consultation  with  all relevant  stakeholders. Therefore,  this  first  review  report does  not draw 
definitive  conclusions  on  many  of  the  aspects  examined.  Nevertheless,  it  provides  useful 
indications on the functioning  and effectiveness  of the Regulation  and identifies areas to  be 
further evaluated in the context of the next reviews. 

Key findings 

With regard to the impacts of the Regulation on the ground in third 3TG producing countries 
and notably conflict-affected and high-risk areas, the external study identified limited impacts 
among  local  stakeholders  that  could  be  attributed  directly  to  the  Regulation.  Due  to  the 
Regulation’s design laying down binding due diligence requirements on EU imports, more time 
and data are needed further upstream in the supply chain to be able to distinguish the impact of 
the  Regulation  in  third  countries  from  broader  global  efforts  to  promote  due  diligence  in 
minerals supply chains. Given the  increased international efforts on due diligence with respect 
to 3TG, it will remain challenging to attribute impacts in producing countries specifically to the 
Regulation. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that in several of the third countries examined, there 
exist broader international efforts by many actors in the 3TG sector to advance OECD-aligned 
due diligence in line with the Regulation’s objectives. 

Within the EU, Member States have made progress in their efforts to implement the Regulation. 
MSCAs  have  been  set  up  and  the  first  rounds  of  ex-post  compliance  checks  have  been 
conducted in most Member States with Union importers within the scope of the Regulation. 
Nonetheless, MSCAs still face challenges, most notably with regard to transparency and access 
to relevant due diligence information. While independent third-party audits constitute a key part 
of  the  due  diligence  requirements,  a  shortage  of  qualified  auditors  was  reported  both  by 
economic operators and MSCAs as a significant challenge in implementing the Regulation. In 
addition,  the review identified a varying degree of capacities and resources among  MSCAs, 
pointing to the need to further improve engagement and exchanges among them, most notably 
23 

 
 
 
to ensure a uniform implementation of the Regulation and to avoid attempts to circumvent the 
requirements.  

Regarding the cost of compliance, as well as accompanying tools of the Regulation, the review 
confirms that due diligence schemes can support compliance and are considered a generally 
affordable tool. The role of schemes, however, needs to be continuously clarified to avoid an 
overreliance  on  schemes,  as  economic  operators  remain  individually  responsible  to  comply 
with the Regulation irrespectively whether they participate in such schemes (including when 
the scheme has been recognised by the Commission). The CAHRAs list that is drawn up and 
updated based on external expertise is a useful tool that is regularly used by economic operators 
and  MSCAs.  Specific  improvements  to  the  underlying  methodology  to  this  list  should  be 
considered by the Commission on a continuous basis. The review confirmed the added value 
of  other  tools,  such  as  the  EPRM  or  the  Strategic  Partnerships  on  Raw  Materials,  that 
complement  the  efforts  of  the  Regulation  by  bringing  in  the  international  cooperation 
perspective and by engaging further with third partner countries.  

Finally, the review examined questions around the scope of the Regulation and related issues 
that can impact its functioning and effectiveness, beyond those prescribed by the Regulation. 
The assessment suggests that an expansion of the material scope (possible inclusion of further 
minerals or metals and notably cobalt), or the risk scope (possible inclusion of further risks such 
as  environmental  ones)  is  to  a  large  extent  already  resulting  from  other  subsequent  EU 
legislation,  and  most  notably  the  CSDDD  and  the  Batteries  Regulation.  As  several  of  the 
requirements  in  these  recent  pieces  of  legislation  have  not  entered  into  application  yet,  it  is 
premature to draw decisive conclusions on how these will interact with the Regulation, which 
ultimately will depend on how these other initiatives are implemented. At this moment, it is 
therefore not possible to conclude that changes to the Regulation would be necessary to improve 
its functioning, or to fully assess if other legislation sufficiently complements the effectiveness 
of the Regulation.  

Future outlook 

In  light  of  the  above,  this  first  review  sheds  light  on  the  need  for  the  EU  to  intensify  its 
engagement and awareness raising efforts around the Regulation and its objectives. This could 
include strengthening the efforts to communicate about the Regulation on-the-ground and to 
relevant key stakeholders, and support relevant development projects. EU Delegations could be 
a primary interlocutor and facilitator when engaging with local actors. 

Moreover,  the  Commission  can  look  further  into  how  to  improve  convergence  in  the 
enforcement  of  the  Regulation  by  MSCAs.  While  the  Commission  is  already  working  on 
several tools, such as the platform for the exchange of customs data or the regular exchanges 
through the 3TG Expert Group Meetings, continuously providing clarifications or guidance and 
facilitating  the  cross-border  cooperation  among  MSCAs  in  tackling  challenges  related  to 
responsible mineral sourcing and compliance with the Regulation should be further pursued.  

Importantly, the key takeaway of this first review exercise is that the impacts of the Regulation 
should not be assessed in an isolated manner. This Regulation forms part of broader ecosystem 
of  measures  whose  objective  it  is  to  advance  responsible  sourcing  of  3TG,  preventing  its 
contribution to conflict and severe human rights abuses. In that respect, this review reflected on 
24 

 
 
increased  uptake  of  due  diligence  and  an 

initial  positive  developments  both  in  third  countries  and  within  the  EU,  notably  on  the 
improved  understanding, 
indications  of 
implementation  and  dissemination  of  the  OECD  DD  Guidance  more  broadly.  Such  broader 
uptake internationally of due diligence in the 3TG sector and beyond must be supported and 
further enhanced. In parallel with ensuring effective implementation of EU policies, the EU has 
an important role to play in supporting further international efforts, leading by example and 
engaging with all relevant stakeholders, third countries and in international fora.  

25