Conflict Minerals: Stakeholder Options for Responsible Sourcing Are Expanding, but More Information on Smelters Is Needed
Published: 2014-06-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Armed groups in eastern DRC continue to commit severe human rights abuses and profit from the exploitation of minerals, according to reports from the United Nations. Congress included a provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to address the trade in “conflict minerals”—tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold. Section 1502 of the Act directed several U.S. agencies to report or focus on issues related to conflict minerals.
This report examines, among other things, (1) the extent to which relevant U.S. agencies have undertaken activities related to responsible sourcing of conflict minerals and (2) what is known about the status of, and information provided by, stakeholder initiatives focused on responsible sourcing of conflict minerals from the DRC and adjoining countries. GAO reviewed and analyzed documents and data covering 2003 through 2014. We interviewed representatives from State, USAID, SEC, Commerce, nongovernmental organizations, industry, and international organizations who are cognizant of conflict minerals issues.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Since the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Act) was passed in 2010, relevant U.S. agencies have undertaken various activities related to responsible sourcing of conflict minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and adjoining countries. In response to the Act, the Department of State (State) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) developed a strategy in 2011 to address the linkages among human rights abuses, armed groups, and the mining of conflict minerals and are implementing various strategy objectives. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a rule in 2012 requiring certain companies to disclose the source and chain of custody of necessary conflict minerals in their products. However, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) has not yet compiled a list of all conflict minerals processing facilities—smelters and refiners—known worldwide, required by January 2013 by the Act. Commerce cited difficulties with, for example, tracking conflict minerals operations but told GAO that it had completed outreach efforts with the majority of stakeholders. Commerce did not have a plan of action, with associated time frames, for developing and reporting on the list of conflict minerals processing facilities worldwide. Standard practices in program and project management include, among other things, developing a plan to execute specific projects needed to obtain defined results within a specific time frame. An action plan with timeframes could better position Commerce to report on the status of its efforts to produce a final list to Congress and to hold its personnel accountable for completing activities.
Over the past several years, a number of stakeholders—foreign governments, multilateral organizations, and industry associations, among others—have expanded, or made plans to expand, initiatives focused on responsible sourcing of conflict minerals in the DRC and adjoining countries. These stakeholder initiatives, such as in-region tracing of conflict minerals and development of guidance documents and audit protocols, have grown to include new mine sites, countries, and smelters. For example, the Conflict-Free Smelter Program, an industry-led effort, has expanded from 26 smelters certified as conflict-free in 2013 to 85 smelters as of April 25, 2014 (see table). New stakeholder initiatives are also underway or planned in the region, including the first responsible sourcing initiative in the Congo-Brazzaville. Some initiatives have yielded publicly available information, including data on production of conflict-free minerals and export data. For example, one stakeholder has reported production data for tin, tungsten, and tantalum from three provinces in the DRC and in Rwanda.
Source: Conflict-Free Sourcing Initiative data, GAO (analysis).
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Secretary of Commerce provide Congress a plan that outlines the steps, with associated timeframes, to develop and report the required information about smelters and refiners of conflict minerals worldwide. Commerce concurred with GAO's recommendation and noted that it will submit a listing of all known conflict minerals processing facilities worldwide to Congress by September 1, 2014.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Over the past decade, the United States and the international community  have sought to improve security in the Democratic Republic of the Congo  (DRC), the site of one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. The  International Rescue Committee has previously estimated that since  1998, more than 5.4 million people have died in the DRC as a result of  this crisis, which has also destabilized the minerals-rich eastern part of  the country, created insecurity, displaced thousands of people, and  perpetuated a cycle of poverty. As we previously reported, illegal armed  groups and some units of the Congolese national military have committed  severe human rights abuses and mass killings and profited from the  illegal exploitation of minerals originating in eastern DRC, particularly in  the provinces of North Kivu and South Kivu. Despite some success in  efforts to improve security in eastern DRC—notably, the November 2013  defeat of M-23, an illegal armed group, as well as campaigns against  other illegal armed groups—the UN reported that as of December 2013,  illegal armed groups in eastern DRC continued to pose a threat to  security, to be responsible for human rights abuses and displacements of  people, and to derive funding from the illicit production, trade, and  smuggling of conflict minerals.
Citing the continuing urgency of the humanitarian situation and the need  to take action, in July 2010, Congress included in the Dodd-Frank Wall  Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (hereafter referred to as the  Act or Dodd-Frank Act) provisions pertaining to trade involving conflict  minerals—tantalum, tin, tungsten, and gold. Section 1502 of the Act  directed several U.S. agencies—the Securities and Exchange  Commission (SEC), the Department of State (State), the U.S. Agency for  International Development (USAID), and the Department of Commerce  (Commerce)—to take certain actions to implement the Act’s conflict  minerals provisions, including provisions related to responsible sourcing  of conflict minerals from the DRC and the adjoining countries. The Act  specifically directed the SEC to promulgate a rule, which SEC issued in  August 2012, that requires certain issuers to disclose annually to SEC  whether any of such minerals are necessary to the functionality or  production of products manufactured, or contracted to be manufactured,  by the issuer originated in the DRC or adjoining country and if so, to  provide an additional report. The Act also mandated GAO to report,  beginning in 2012 and annually thereafter, on the effectiveness of the  SEC rule in promoting peace and security in the DRC and adjoining  countries, and annually, beginning in 2011, on the rate of sexual violence  in war-torn areas of DRC and adjoining countries, among other things.
To address our mandates, since July 2011 we have issued several  reports on topics ranging from the rate of sexual violence in the DRC and  adjoining countries to SEC’s rule and initiatives focused on responsible  sourcing of minerals. Because the first SEC-required disclosures of  manufacturers’ use of conflict minerals were not due to SEC until June  2014, and because sufficient time must elapse to allow the rule’s full  impact to materialize, we have not yet addressed the effectiveness of  SEC’s conflict minerals rule as required under the legislation. Moreover,  our ability to report on the rule’s effectiveness will depend on the  availability of information on stakeholder initiatives to, for example,  monitor, ensure, or report on responsible sourcing of conflict minerals  from the DRC and adjoining countries.examine   Consequently, in this report, we  1.  the extent to which relevant U.S. agencies have taken actions related  to the responsible sourcing of conflict minerals;  2.  what is known about the status of, and any information provided by,  stakeholder initiatives focused on responsible sourcing of conflict  minerals from the DRC and adjoining countries; and  3.  any new information about the rate of sexual violence in eastern DRC  and three adjoining countries—Burundi, Rwanda, and Uganda—that  has become available since we issued our 2013 report.
To address our first and second objectives, we reviewed and analyzed  available data covering 2003 through 2014 on conflict minerals from the  DRC and adjoining countries and from responsible sourcing initiatives, as  well as reports and other documents from relevant U.S. agencies, foreign  governments, multilateral organizations, nongovernmental organizations  (NGOs), and industry associations. Because the data were not used to  support findings, conclusions, or recommendations, we did not assess  their reliability. We also interviewed State, USAID, Commerce, and SEC  officials as well as stakeholder representatives from international  organizations, NGOs, and industry associations who are cognizant of  conflict minerals issues. We selected these stakeholders based on their  expertise on responsible sourcing issues, because they represented a  range of perspectives on conflict minerals, and because we had  established contacts with these entities on our last review. In addition,  some of the stakeholders we talked to have been working on the ground  in the DRC. The stakeholders we spoke with constitute a  nongeneralizable sample, and the information we gathered from them  cannot be used to infer views of other stakeholders cognizant of conflict  minerals issues. To address our third objective, we reviewed and  analyzed relevant documents and interviewed representatives from State,  USAID, various UN agencies, relevant NGOs, and researchers to identify  any new data on sexual violence. Specifically, we followed up with  officials from those groups we interviewed for our prior review on sexual  violence rates in eastern DRC and adjoining countries. We also  conducted Internet literature searches to identify new academic articles  containing any additional information available since our 2013 report. See  appendix I for a complete description of our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2013 to June 2014  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Brief History of Conflict in the DRC and the Region
paragraphs: The DRC is a vast, mineral-rich nation with an estimated population of  about 75 million people and an area that is roughly one-quarter the size of  the United States, according to the UN. The map in figure 1 shows the  DRC’s provinces and adjoining countries.
Since its independence in 1960, the DRC has undergone political  upheaval, including a civil war, according to State. In particular, the  eastern DRC has continued to be plagued by violence often perpetrated  by illegal armed groups and some members of the Congolese national  military against civilians. In November 2012, M-23, an illegal armed  group, occupied the city of Goma and other cities in eastern DRC and  clashed with the Congolese national army. During this time, the UN  reported numerous cases of sexual violence against civilians, including  women and children, that were perpetrated by armed groups and some  members of the Congolese national military. Although M-23 eventually  withdrew from the cities, the group’s presence in the region continued. In  December 2012, the Ugandan president began to broker peace talks,  known as the Kampala Dialogue, between M-23 and the DRC  government, aimed at reaching a final and principled agreement that  ensured the disarmament and demobilization of M-23 and accountability  for human rights abuses. The M-23 was defeated in November 2013 by  the Congolese national military with support from UN forces. In December  2013, the former M-23 and the DRC each signed individual declarations  that, among other things, set out the conditions for the disarmament,  demobilization, and reintegration of M23 into Congolese society and  called for those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity  to be held accountable.
Prior to the defeat of M-23, in February 2013, the 11 countries in the  region adopted the “Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework for the  Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Region.” Some of the adjoining countries in the region have also experienced recent turmoil,  which has led to flows of large numbers of refugees into the DRC in  addition to internally displaced persons. The United Nations High  Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated, as of mid 2013, that  there were close to 50,000 refugees from the Central African Republic, in  addition to over 120,000 refugees from other countries, as well as around  2.6 million internally displaced persons living in camps or with host  families in the DRC.
section_title: U.S. Government Response to Conflict in the DRC
paragraphs: Congress has focused on issues related to the DRC for almost a decade.  In 2006, Congress passed the Democratic Republic of Congo Relief,  Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006, stating that U.S policy  is to engage with governments working for peace and security throughout  the DRC and hold accountable individuals, entities, and countries working  to destabilize the government. In July 2010, Congress passed the Dodd- Frank Act, which included several provisions in section 1502 of the Act  concerning conflict minerals in the DRC and adjoining countries. The Act  directs State, USAID, SEC, and Commerce to take steps on matters  related to the implementation of those provisions (see text box).
Provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act Related to Conflict Minerals in the DRC and  Adjoining Countries  Section 1502(a) states that “it is the sense of the Congress that the exploitation and  trade of conflict minerals originating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is  helping to finance conflict characterized by extreme levels of violence in the eastern  Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly sexual- and gender-based violence,  and contributing to an emergency humanitarian situation therein, warranting the  provisions of section 13(p) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as added by  subsection (b).”    Section 1502(b) requires SEC, in consultation with State, to promulgate disclosure  and reporting regulations regarding the use of conflict minerals from DRC and  adjoining countries.  Section 1502(c) requires State and USAID to develop, among other things, a  strategy to address the linkages among human rights abuses, armed groups, the  mining of conflict minerals, and commercial products.   Section 1502(d) requires that Commerce report, among other things, a listing of all  known conflict minerals processing facilities worldwide.
In addition, in July 2013, the United States appointed the current Special  Envoy for the Great Lakes Region and the DRC, whose office develops  and leads the implementation of U.S. regional policy on cross-border  security, political, economic and social issues. The Special Envoy leads  U.S. efforts to support the implementation of the Peace, Security, and  Cooperation Framework Agreement, including the development and  implementation of a comprehensive strategy to stop human suffering and  violence in the region, by promoting political, economic, and social  reconciliation.
section_title: International Response to Conflict in the DRC
paragraphs: In 1999, the UN Security Council authorized peacekeeping operations in  the DRC, known as the UN Organization Mission in Democratic Republic  of the Congo (MONUC). MONUC’s mission included achieving a  ceasefire and protecting civilians and other nonmilitary personnel from  threats of physical violence. In 2010, MONUC was replaced by the UN  Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the  Congo (MONUSCO), whose priorities also include protecting civilians and  stabilizing the country.
The international community has also responded to the conflict in the  DRC and adjoining countries by appointing special envoys to the region.  For example, in March 2013, the UN appointed a Special Envoy of the  Secretary-General for the Great Lakes Region to support the  implementation of the 11-nation Peace, Security and Cooperation  Framework for the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Region.
According to the UN, the envoy’s key tasks include undertaking good offices to  strengthen the relations between the signatories of the framework, revitalizing existing  accords and coordinating the international engagement. objectives of the new force based in North Kivu province are to neutralize  armed groups, reduce the threat they pose to state authority and civilian  security, and make space for stabilization activities.
In addition, the European Union (EU) is exploring possible legislation  related to conflict minerals and responsible sourcing. European Commission release, in March 2014, the EU proposed a draft  regulation setting up an EU system of self-certification for importers of tin,  tantalum, tungsten, and gold for imports into the EU. The draft regulation  indicated that the self-certification would align with the Organization for  Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) “OECD Due  Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from  Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas,” which includes a five-step  framework for risk-based due diligence in the supply chain. According to  the release, the regulation gives EU importers an opportunity to deepen  ongoing efforts to ensure clean supply chains when trading legitimately  with operators in conflict-affected countries.
Canada also has a proposed conflict minerals initiative. According to State, Canada’s  Conflict Minerals Act was reintroduced for discussion in the Canadian parliament in April  2014 and would require Canadian companies to exercise due diligence in respect of the  exploitation and trading of designated conflict minerals originating in the Great Lakes  Region of Africa.
section_title: Conflict Minerals Supply Chains
paragraphs: Uses of Conflict Minerals  Various industries, particularly manufacturing  industries, use the four conflict minerals in a  wide variety of products. For example, tin is  used to solder metal pieces and is also found  in food packaging, in steel coatings on  automobile parts, and in some plastics. Most  tantalum is used to manufacture tantalum  capacitors, which enable energy storage in  electronic products such as cell phones and  computers as well as used to produce alloy  additives, which can be found in turbines in jet  engines. Tungsten is used in automobile  manufacturing, drill bits and cutting tools, and  other industrial manufacturing tools and is the  primary component of filaments in light bulbs.  Gold is used as reserves and in jewelry and is  also used by the electronics industry.
Supply chains for companies using tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold  generally begin at the mine site, where ore is extracted from the ground  with mechanized or artisanal mining techniques. However, these supply  chains can be complex and vary considerably, according to some industry  association and company representatives. For example, as figure 2  shows, in the “upstream” segment of the supply chain—that is, from mine  to smelter—ore may be purchased by a local processor or trader and  then by an exporter, who ships it to a smelter for refinement; in other  cases, the ore may be sold directly to an exporter. The “downstream”  segments of conflict mineral supply chains—that is, from smelter to  manufacturer—may vary as well, depending in part on the type of  mineral. Figure 2 provides a simplified depiction of the supply chain for  the four conflict minerals.
Smelters and refiners are considered the “choke points” in the supply  chain, since a limited number of smelters and refiners process conflict  minerals worldwide and the origin of the minerals after processing can be  difficult to verify. Smelters primarily provide high-purity tin, tantalum, and  tungsten directly to component parts manufacturers, although some sell  high-purity metals through traders or exchanges. Gold refiners typically  sell high-purity gold to banks for use as a store of value or to international  exchanges where gold is bought and sold, although some refiners sell  gold directly to manufacturers; banks and traders may also sell gold to  manufacturers, including jewelry and component parts manufacturers.  Component parts manufacturers use the refined tin, tantalum, tungsten,  or gold to construct individual parts—such as capacitors, engine parts, or  clasps for necklaces—that they sell to original equipment manufacturers.  The original equipment manufacturers complete the final assembly of a  product and sell the final product to the consumer.
section_title: Responsible Sourcing Initiatives
paragraphs: Global and In-Region Sourcing Initiatives    Global sourcing initiatives may minimize the  risk that minerals that have been exploited  by illegal armed groups will enter the supply  chain and may also support companies’  efforts to identify the source of the conflict  minerals across the supply chain around the  world. In-region sourcing initiatives may  support responsible sourcing of conflict  minerals from Central Africa and the  identification of specific mines of origin for  those minerals. Such initiatives in DRC and  adjoining countries focus on tracing minerals  from the mine to the mineral smelter or  refiner by supporting a bagging and tagging  program or some type of traceability  scheme.
Various stakeholders—including governments, industry associations,  international organizations, and international and local NGOs working in  the Great Lakes Region—operate or support initiatives to promote and  exercise responsible sourcing of conflict minerals. Stakeholder-developed  initiatives—which include the development of guidance documents, audit  protocols, and sourcing practices—support efforts by companies reporting  to SEC under the rule to (1) conduct due diligence of their conflict  minerals supply chain, (2) identify the source of conflict minerals within  their supply chain, and (3) responsibly source conflict minerals. The  initiatives can be divided into two categories: global or in-region.
Most responsible sourcing initiatives follow OECD’s due-diligence  guidance. minerals or metals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas and,  according to OECD, is one of the only international frameworks available  to help companies meet their due diligence reporting requirements.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD Due Diligence  Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk  Areas: Second Edition (Paris: November 2012).
section_title: U.S. Agencies Have Taken Actions Related to Responsible Sourcing of Conflict Minerals, but Commerce Has Not Yet Fulfilled Its Requirements
paragraphs: Since the Act was passed in 2010, State, USAID, SEC, and Commerce  have undertaken activities related to implementation of the Act’s conflict  minerals provisions, including activities related to responsible sourcing of  such minerals from the DRC and adjoining countries. As required by the  Act, State and USAID developed a strategy in 2011 aimed at addressing  the linkages between human rights abuses, armed groups, the mining of  conflict minerals, and commercial products and are implementing various  objectives of the strategy. State also produced a map of mineral-rich  areas under control of armed groups in the DRC. SEC issued its required  conflict minerals rule in 2012. As of May 2014, Commerce had taken  steps toward producing a list of all conflict minerals processing facilities  worldwide, which the Act required by January 2013, but had not  completed the task. Moreover, Commerce had not developed a plan of  action with associated timeframes for how and when it expects to  complete this effort and report to Congress. Standard practices in  program and project management and execution include, among other  things, developing a plan to execute specific projects needed to obtain  defined results within a specific time frame. State, USAID, SEC, and  Commerce also have engaged in activities involving stakeholder  partnerships and outreach and have provided technical assistance to  other governments related to activities focused on the responsible  sourcing of conflict minerals.
subsections: section_title: State, USAID, and SEC Have Addressed the Act’s Requirements, and Commerce Is Working toward Fulfilling Its Requirements
paragraphs: The Act directed State, USAID, SEC, and Commerce to undertake  various activities to implement its provisions related to conflict minerals.  Since the Act was passed in 2010, the agencies have taken the following  actions.
subsections: section_title: State and USAID Developed a Strategy, and State Produced a Conflict Minerals Map
paragraphs: Responding to the Act, State and USAID developed a strategy in 2011 to  address the linkages among human rights abuses, armed groups, the  mining of conflict minerals, and commercial products. The Act required  State and USAID to submit, by January 2011, a strategy to address the  linkages between human rights abuses, armed groups, mining of conflict  minerals, and commercial products. The strategy document that State  and USAID submitted to Congress in 2011 lists five objectives: (1)  promote an appropriate role of security forces, (2) enhance civilian  regulation of minerals trade in the DRC, (3) protect artisanal miners and  local communities, (4) strengthen regional and international efforts, and  (5) promote due diligence and responsible trade through public outreach.  The strategy includes activities corresponding with each of these  objectives—for example, building the capacity of civilian mining  authorities in the DRC to certify mine sites, supporting the implementation  and coordination of certification and traceability schemes, building the  capacity of the ICGLR related to mineral audit mechanisms, and  engaging with industries and civil society groups regarding supply chain  due diligence efforts. State and USAID officials indicated that they have  been implementing objectives of the strategy over the past few years.  According to the U.S. Special Envoy for the Great Lakes Region and the  DRC, the strategy remains relevant and accurate and State has used it in  conjunction with other U.S. government agencies as a roadmap for efforts  to help break the link between armed groups and conflict minerals.
In addition, in 2011, State developed a map of mineral-rich zones and  areas under control of armed groups in the DRC and has subsequently  published several updated maps, as required by the Act. The maps are  focused on the exploitation of tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold in the  provinces of North and South Kivu and parts of Orientale, Maniema, and  Katanga provinces. According to State, the most current map, which  State published in February 2014, was based on data from surveys  conducted in 2013 by the International Peace Information Service  (IPIS)—an NGO— and on information from consultations with the DRC  government, the UN Group of Experts, and MONUSCO (see app. II for  the 2014 map). State reported that lack of complete or fully verifiable  data makes it difficult to confirm the location of many mine sites, to  establish which mine sites are active at any given time, and to  comprehensively verify reports of armed groups or other entities that are  either present at mines or have access to revenue streams emanating  from them. State officials indicated that in the future the map may become  digital rather than paper based.
section_title: SEC Issued Its Conflict Minerals Rule in 2012
paragraphs: As we previously reported, SEC issued its conflict minerals rule in  August 2012. The Act required that SEC promulgate, by April 2011,  disclosure and reporting regulations regarding the use of conflict minerals  from the DRC and adjoining countries.
SEC issued a “frequently asked questions” (FAQ) document in May 2013  to address questions by companies that will have to report to SEC under  the conflict minerals rule. SEC officials indicated that these FAQs  included questions posed most often by companies regarding  interpretation of the rule. In April 2014, SEC issued additional FAQs  addressing questions that mostly pertained to the independent private  sector audit of companies’ conflict minerals disclosure reports. According  to an SEC official, these FAQs were based on interpretive questions  asked by SEC-reporting companies and the audit community.
In January 2014, SEC made “Form SD,” a specialized disclosure form for  reporting compliance with the conflict minerals rule, available for  electronic filing. The form, originally published with the conflict minerals  rule, provides general instructions to SEC-reporting companies for filing  the conflict minerals disclosure and specifies the information that their  conflict minerals reports must include. SEC-reporting companies were  required to file under the rule for the first time by June 2, 2014, and  annually thereafter on May 31. According to SEC officials, based on  preliminary feedback they received, they anticipated that most SEC- reporting companies subject to the rule would be unable to determine  whether or not their products qualified as “DRC conflict-free.”
section_title: Commerce Has Taken Steps but Has Not Provided a List of Conflict Minerals Processing Facilities to Congress
paragraphs: More than a year after the deadline required by the Act, Commerce has  not yet fulfilled its mandate under section 1502 of the Act. Section 1502  directed Commerce to report, among other things, a list of all known  conflict minerals processing facilities worldwide to appropriate  congressional committees annually starting no later than 30 months after  the Act’s enactment—that is, by January 2013.Commerce had not developed such a list or developed a plan of action,  with associated time frames, for completing this requirement and  reporting it to Congress. Standard practices in program and project  management include developing, among other things, a program plan to  execute specific projects needed to obtain defined programmatic results  within a specific time frame. In January 2014, Commerce officials told us  that they had identified entities that they hoped would help them identify  publicly available information about conflict minerals and identify  stakeholders who are knowledgeable about conflict minerals issues.  Specifically, Commerce officials indicated that they had assembled a  proposed and internal outreach plan, which includes meeting with  stakeholders to discuss how these organizations have gathered  information on conflict mineral smelters and identifies other efforts that  Commerce can explore to develop the list of conflict minerals processing  facilities. Commerce officials also indicated that they anticipated a 3- to 4- month time frame for the proposed outreach efforts to talk to  stakeholders. In May 2014, Commerce officials stated that they had  completed discussions with the majority of the stakeholders identified in  the outreach plan and have developed several preliminary lists of conflict  minerals processing facilities, based on information they obtained from  the stakeholders. However, Commerce officials stated that they did not  have a timeframe for completing the final list for Congress.
As of May 2014,  Commerce officials said that they had encountered some challenges  associated with gathering data on conflict minerals to help inform their  outreach plan and required reporting. For example, according to the  officials, conflict minerals and mining operations are difficult to track;  because the equipment used to process conflict minerals can be moved  easily, such operations can emerge in different locations. In addition,  Commerce officials mentioned that some conflict minerals data may be  inaccessible to the U.S. government because a large number of conflict  mineral smelters are in China.timeframes could better position Commerce to report on the status of its  efforts to compile a list of conflict minerals processing facilities worldwide  and to hold its personnel accountable for completing its related activities.
Having an action plan with associated  Some stakeholders that we contacted, including government and industry  officials and representatives of the UN Group of Experts and an NGO,  indicated that a comprehensive list of conflict minerals smelters and  refiners—considered the “choke point” of the supply chain—would be  very useful in the effort to ensure responsible sourcing of minerals in the  DRC and adjoining countries. According to these stakeholders, such a list  would enable companies that are subject to the SEC rule to maintain  transparency regarding their supply chains, particularly in their  communications with smelters, and would also provide companies the  information they need for their SEC-required conflict minerals disclosure  reports.
section_title: U.S. Agencies Have Engaged in Partnerships and Outreach and Provided Technical Assistance to Stakeholders
paragraphs: U.S. government agencies have engaged in a variety of activities that  involve partnerships and coordination with other stakeholders or outreach  to stakeholders, and some agencies have provided technical assistance  to stakeholders regarding responsible sourcing of conflict minerals. Some  agencies’ activities contribute to global and in-region responsible sourcing  initiatives and some of the activities address the implementation of  objectives outlined in the strategy to address the linkages between  human rights abuses, armed groups, and the mining of conflict minerals.
subsections: section_title: U.S. Agency Partnerships and Coordination Efforts
paragraphs: Some U.S. agencies have partnered and coordinated with other  stakeholders—other government agencies, industry, and civil society— regarding issues related to responsible sourcing of conflict minerals. For  example:
State and USAID, both in headquarters and posts or missions  overseas, and other U.S. agencies coordinate with one another on  weekly or biweekly conference calls to discuss the progress of  responsible sourcing efforts, provide updates on recent events, and  collaborate on future events, according to State and USAID officials.
USAID works in a collaborative and coordinated manner with State in  Washington and regionally, using the 2011 U.S. strategy as a  framework for the coordination, according to USAID officials. The  officials indicated that funding also has been coordinated between the  two agencies across the five objectives of the strategy and totals over  $25 million, as of 2013.
State and USAID coordinate with other stakeholders through the  Public-Private Alliance for Responsible Minerals Trade (PPA) to fund  and support organizations working on responsible sourcing efforts.  Both State and USAID are on the PPA’s Governance Committee,  which consists of participants from foreign governments, industry, and  civil society.
USAID has partnered with the International Organization for Migration  to help enhance civilian control of the DRC’s mineral trade through  infrastructure improvements and institutional reforms, according to  agency officials. The officials reported that with USAID funding, the  organization will also establish pilot certification and traceability  systems in and around the mineral trading centers and other areas of  South and North Kivu.
USAID has partnered and coordinated with stakeholders in the DRC,  according to agency officials. For example, the officials said that  USAID is coordinating with the DRC government regarding various  aspects of minerals trade, is involved in the multi-stakeholder Mining  Thematic Group in the DRC, and facilitates the Eastern Congo Mining  Coordination Team.
On a multilateral level, both USAID and State participate in the OECD  Responsible Sourcing Stakeholder Forums held every 6 months,  according to USAID officials. This forum, coordinated by the ICGLR,  OECD, and the UN Group of Experts, is a platform for governments,  the private sector, international organizations, and civil society to  share experiences with implementation of supply chain due diligence  for responsible sourcing of minerals from conflict-affected and high- risk areas. Both State and USAID officials have participated at times  as facilitators of these forums.
The current U.S. Special Envoy for the Great Lakes Region and the  DRC has collaborated with other stakeholders, such as the UN  Special Envoy for the Great Lakes, the African Union, and other  multilateral and bilateral partners, to strengthen international  coordination mechanisms on the crisis in the Great Lakes, according  to State. These efforts have taken place under the Peace, Security,  and Cooperation Framework Agreement for the DRC and the Region.
section_title: U.S. Agency Outreach Efforts
paragraphs: A couple of U.S. government agencies indicated that they have  conducted outreach to various stakeholders to promote responsible  sourcing of conflict minerals and to obtain information about conflict  mineral sourcing and supply chains. For example, State and Commerce  officials reported the following.
State officials told us that State has engaged with foreign  governments and industry associations regarding the Dodd-Frank Act  requirements. According to these officials, State’s efforts have  included sending letters about section 1502 of the Act to foreign  governments that are prominent in the conflict mineral supply chain as  well as encouraging these governments and companies in those  countries to support the aim of the legislation. In a November 2013  briefing, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Counter Threat  Finance and Sanctions reported that he had travelled to Asia and  Europe to talk with representatives from smelters and governments  about responsible sourcing initiatives and encourage participation in  such initiatives. State officials also indicated that they have facilitated  outreach efforts for industry associations, such as the Conflict-Free  Smelter Initiative (CFSI) and others, to help them secure meetings in  Asian countries to discuss conflict free mining and smelting.  According to the State officials, during the outreach some members  from industry and industry associations expressed interest in talking to  Commerce about smelters and support for responsible sourcing,  according to State officials.
Commerce officials stated that their proposed outreach plan identified  entities that could enable them to develop the list of conflict mineral  smelters and refiners required by the Act. According to these officials,  they have conducted outreach to these entities, including government  agencies, industry associations, international organizations, and  NGOs.
section_title: U.S. Agency Technical Assistance
paragraphs: Some U.S. agencies have provided technical assistance related to  responsible sourcing of conflict minerals to various stakeholders.  According to agency officials, these stakeholders have consisted primarily  of other governments, particularly in the Great Lakes Region. For  example:
State officials said that they had shared experiences and challenges  related to implementing the Act with officials from the EU who were  working on proposed conflict minerals legislation.
SEC officials stated that they had discussed with EU officials issues  that SEC considered when drafting the conflict minerals rule as well  as questions about the rule that SEC received from industry.
USAID officials stated that they had been working with the ICGLR in  providing technical assistance on conflict minerals programs,  particularly through the steering committee for ICGLR’s Regional  Initiative against the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources.  Specifically, according to USAID officials, USAID has been  implementing a multiyear institutional capacity program in support of  the ICGLR to build the overall strength of the Executive Secretariat as  well as the ICGLR’s regional initiative. USAID officials said that the  agency will soon begin implementing activities to support a third-party  supply chain audit mechanism and an independent conflict minerals  supply chain auditor.
section_title: Stakeholder Initiatives Are Expanding and Provide Some Information on Sourcing of Conflict Minerals
paragraphs: Since we reported in July 2013, stakeholders have expanded existing  initiatives and added new initiatives focused on responsible sourcing of  conflict minerals in the DRC and adjoining countries, to include new mine  sites, countries, and smelters. Some of these initiatives have yielded  publically available information, including data on production of conflict- free minerals and export data, as well as reports on the progress and  results of the initiatives. However, this information is limited in scope and  thus may not provide a comprehensive description of the sourcing of  conflict minerals from the DRC and adjoining countries.
subsections: section_title: Stakeholders Have Expanded Existing Initiatives, and New Initiatives Are Underway
paragraphs: Stakeholders have recently expanded, or made plans to expand, a  number of existing global and in-region responsible sourcing initiatives;  and two new initiatives are underway. Figure 3 shows the starting dates  for existing, expanding, and new responsible sourcing initiatives.  According to some stakeholders we interviewed, improvement in security  in eastern DRC and industries’ growing awareness of responsible  sourcing and the Act’s requirements may account for the expansion of  responsible sourcing initiative.
The following are examples of global responsible-sourcing initiatives that  stakeholders have expanded since we reported in July 2013.
The Conflict-Free Sourcing Initiative (CFSI) has expanded in several  aspects related to responsible sourcing. First, CFSI’s Conflict-Free  Smelter Program has expanded the number of smelters it has certified as  conflict free. The program is a voluntary one in which smelters undergo  an independent third-party audit, in accordance with OECD’s due  diligence guidelines, to verify the origin of minerals processed at their  facilities. The number of smelters that the program has certified as  conflict-free has expanded from 26 smelters in summer 2013 to 85  smelters as of April 25, 2014 (see table 1). An additional 25 smelters are  in the process of being certified, bringing the total number of smelters  involved in the program to 110. As of January 2014, the Conflict-Free  Smelter Program has expanded to include smelters for tungsten in  addition to the other three conflict minerals.
Second, according to CFSI representatives, through outreach to industry,  CFSI has expanded its collaboration with companies involved with the  conflict minerals supply chain. CFSI’s outreach includes twice-yearly  workshops on conflict minerals issues that are open to all participants.  According to CFSI, outreach such as these workshops bring together  hundreds of representatives from industry, government, and civil society  for updates, in-depth discussions, and guidance on best practices for  responsible mineral sourcing. CFSI officials stated that such outreach  recently resulted in collaboration with the tungsten industry, which led to  certification of the first conflict-free tungsten smelter in 2014.
Third, in 2014, CFSI began offering its members information about the  SEC-required “reasonable country of origin” data for conflict minerals,  providing the most detailed information currently available about the  source of conflict minerals for smelting and refining facilities that are  validated through the Conflict-Free Smelter Program. According to CFSI,  this information may be useful to companies as they prepare the conflict  minerals disclosure reports required by the SEC rule and demonstrate  conformance with the OECD due diligence guidelines.
In January 2012, the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA), which  represents the global market for gold and silver, finalized and published  its Responsible Gold Guidance to ensure that the gold refiners it accredits  purchase only conflict-free gold.required to complete an annual third-party audit to verify their compliance  with the LBMA guidance, according to an LBMA official. As of March  2014, of the 67 gold refiners that LBMA oversees, more than three- quarters had successfully submitted their audits and received the  Responsible Gold Certificate, according to the official. The representative  stated that if a refiner does not submit a third-party audit by the end of   The refiners accredited by LBMA are  2014, the refiner will be removed from LBMA’s list of accredited refiners.  An LBMA official said that the association also collaborates with other  responsible sourcing stakeholders and global gold exchanges and works  closely with OECD. For example, the official said that, working through  OECD, LBMA has met with Chinese industry representatives to clarify the  purpose and benefits of conducting due diligence audits of their refiners.
Responsible Jewellery Council Chain-of-Custody Certification  Program  The Responsible Jewellery Council—a diamond and precious metals  industry association—launched a chain-of-custody certification program in  March 2012 to help its member companies identify and track conflict-free  gold throughout their supply chains. The program’s requirements, which  are aligned with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for gold, include a  third-party audit of each certified entity to ensure that its gold is conflict- free, according to the Responsible Jewellery Council. According to an  official with the Responsible Jewellery Council, this certification can  support companies’ compliance with the Dodd Frank Act. As of April  2014, nine entities had been validated under the council’s certification  program and more entities were in the process of being certified,  according to the official.
subsections: section_title: Some In-Region Initiatives Have Also Expanded
paragraphs: The following are examples of in-region responsible sourcing initiatives  that stakeholders have expanded, or made plans to expand, since we  reported in July 2013.
ITRI Tin Supply Chain Initiative  The ITRI Tin Supply Chain Initiative (iTSCi) recently announced that it is  expanding its in-region operations. The initiative works with “upstream”  entities (i.e., companies involved in the conflict minerals supply chain  from mine to smelter) in instituting the actions, structures, and processes  necessary to conform with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance and helps  relevant U.S. companies report on their due diligence efforts to the SEC  as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The assistance that iTSCi provides  includes a system to trace bags of minerals from the mines to the  exporter, due diligence audits of iTSCi’s member companies, and  assessments of the political and security situations, which have been  conducted at various mine sites in the DRC and Rwanda.
In February 2014, iTSCi announced that it was expanding its traceability  program into a remote area in the northern region of the Maniema  province of the DRC, and into the North Kivu province of the DRC.  According to iTSCi, improved security in North Kivu, which has a history  of armed conflict, accounts in part for the expansion into the province. An  iTSCi official stated that the initiative is currently looking at options for  extending into South Kivu. Additionally, in April 2014, iTSCi announced  that the program had started operations in Burundi. According to iTSCi,  there is presently little evidence of activity by nongovernment armed  groups in Burundi, since there have been no reports that armed groups  are controlling mine sites or transportation routes, extorting money or  minerals, or illegally taxing the trade of minerals. iTSCi further reported  that it may extend the program to Uganda and eventually to the entire  Great Lakes Region. Also, an iTSCi official stated that the initiative had  successfully piloted technology in Rwanda to collect and manage data on  conflict minerals electronically, which would replace the current paper- based system and increase efficiency of data collection.
Launched by Motorola Solutions and AVX in 2011, the Solutions for Hope  tantalum program is a “closed-pipeline” initiative that traces the flow of  tantalum from the mine to the end-use company. In June 2013,  Solutions for Hope reported that it had completed six shipments of  tantalum, totaling more than 145 metric tons, from the Katanga province  in the DRC. According to officials, in part because of improved security in  the province, the initiative started sourcing tantalum from North Kivu in  March 2014. Officials also noted that Solutions for Hope is exploring a  closed pipeline system for gold in the DRC.
The Conflict-Free Tin Initiative (CFTI), a multistakeholder effort supported  by the Netherlands government, is a closed-pipeline initiative, similar to  Solutions for Hope, started in October 2012 for sourcing tin from the  South Kivu province of the DRC. According to CFTI, the initiative has  expanded its mining operation to Maniema, a province bordering South  Kivu, which is less prone to conflict and the government is reinvesting tax  income into the mining communities. According to USAID, a CFTI  stakeholder, from October 2012 to December 2013, the initiative  generated a total export value of more than $3 million.
In 2010, the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region  (ICGLR) began working with an NGO to develop a regional certification  mechanism to ensure that conflict minerals are fully traceable. ICGLR’s  Regional Certification Mechanism (RCM) enables member countries and  their mining companies to demonstrate where and under what conditions  minerals were produced, allowing member governments to issue ICGLR  regional certificates for those mineral shipments that are in compliance  with the standards of the mechanism. The ICGLR issued its first  certificate in November 2013 to a mine in Rwanda. According to an  ICGLR official, the DRC launched its certificate program but had not yet  issued any certificates as of November 2013. He added that Tanzania  and Burundi may be able to issue certificates by the end of 2014. The  ICGLR official noted several challenges in instituting the RCM in the DRC  and the region. For example, he cited that it is logistically difficult to  catalogue all mines in each country. In addition, the official noted that  training local officials to use the RCM software is difficult and time  consuming. The official added that it takes member countries 1 year to  prepare for all components associated with launching the RCM.
section_title: New Initiatives Have Launched in the Region Since 2013
paragraphs: In the past year, one existing stakeholder has launched a new in-region  responsible sourcing initiative and a new stakeholder has established an  initiative.
The German government’s Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural  Resources (BGR), an existing stakeholder, launched a new initiative in  the past year. According to a representative, BGR’s primary role is to  support the region’s governments and to build government capacity.  Since 2013, BGR has initiated the Analytical Fingerprint Project to allow  for independent verification of the origin of the conflict mineral by  comparing the composition of tantalum, tin, and tungsten concentrate  samples of a known origin with unknown samples, similar to a DNA test.  According to a BGR official, the project has three types of units—sample  preparation labs, high tech labs, and a management unit. To date, BGR  has established sample preparation labs, located in Rwanda since 2013  and in the DRC since 2014, where mineral ore samples are prepared for  analysis. A third sample preparation lab is under construction in Burundi.  BGR is in negotiations to establish a high tech lab in Tanzania, which  receives and analyzes the samples from the preparation labs.  Additionally, in 2013, according to a BGR official, BGR established a  project management unit at the ICGLR headquarters in Burundi, which  evaluates the raw data and produces the analytical fingerprints.
Better Sourcing Program Responsible-Sourcing Pilot  The Better Sourcing Program (BSP), a private company that offers an  independently audited due diligence assurance program to enable  companies to source tantalum, tin, tungsten, and gold from the region, is  a new stakeholder in the region in 2013. The Better Sourcing Program  established a pilot program that covers a tantalum supply chain  originating from the Republic of the Congo (also known as Congo- Brazzaville), which is the first responsible-sourcing initiative in that  country. Better Sourcing Program officials stated that they chose to pilot  the initiative in the Republic of the Congo because no other scheme to  support producers existed there, because the country is relatively conflict  free, and because the government has been cooperative.
section_title: Stakeholders Face Operational Challenges in Expanding or Launching In-Region Initiatives
paragraphs: Some stakeholders that we interviewed noted various challenges to  expanding or launching responsible-sourcing efforts in the DRC and  adjoining countries. For example:
Lack of infrastructure. Some stakeholders reported that inadequate  infrastructure in the DRC and adjoining countries affects their ability to  operate in the region and expand initiatives to new areas.  Representatives from Solutions for Hope stated that infrastructure in  the DRC cannot support a large-scale smelter. According to these  representatives, the power supply in the DRC can be inconsistent  and, because smelting facilities require a large, consistent power  supply to function properly, all tin, tantalum, and tungsten currently  are exported from the DRC and Rwanda for smelting.
Lack of government support. Some stakeholders reported some  operational challenges related to the region’s national and provincial  governments. For example, stakeholders involved in the Conflict Free  Tin Initiative stated that sales of tin from their mine in South Kivu were  halted for nearly 2 months in 2013 after the provincial government of  the region imposed harsh taxes on the minerals mined there.  Additionally, Solutions for Hope officials reported that the DRC’s  current tax structure is not conducive to legitimizing gold and that  expanding the initiative to include gold is therefore difficult.
Lack of buyers for conflict minerals from conflict zones. Several  stakeholders and agency officials reported that some companies are  reluctant to buy minerals produced in the DRC and adjoining countries  because of the high cost of the due diligence required by the Dodd- Frank Act and the perceived reputational risk. For example, according  to one industry official, a major challenge to responsible sourcing in  the region is that the cost of complying with the SEC rule makes it  difficult for SEC-reporting companies to compete in the global market  against companies that are not required to perform costly due  diligence. In addition, an official from the Responsible Jewellery  Council noted that gold is mined in many locations around the world  and that production costs must always be taken into account. She  stated that because the cost of due diligence for gold is usually  proportional to risk, mining and sourcing responsibly in the Great  Lakes Region could become more expensive than in other, lower-risk  areas and that this represents a challenge to responsible sourcing  efforts in the region.
section_title: Some Information about the Conflict Minerals Trade Is Publicly Available
paragraphs: Some stakeholders and governments in the region provide publicly  available information related to in-region mining of conflict minerals and  responsible sourcing initiatives. According to industry officials, the amount  of publicly available data reported by responsible sourcing initiatives has  increased over the past year. We found that iTSCi publishes various  reports on its public website as part of its due diligence system for its  members. These reports provide production and export data for tin,  tantalum, and tungsten, including amounts traced through the iTSCi  program, from three provinces in the DRC and Rwanda, as well as the  mineral sales in U.S. dollars (for more details, including the applicable  quantitative data, see app. IV). Also on its website, iTSCi publishes third- party audits of member companies, which assess the extent to which the  companies have implemented the OECD Due Diligence Guidance and  evaluate the companies’ adherence to iTSCi’s traceability and due  diligence procedure. Additionally, iTSCi publishes governance  assessments covering a range of topics. Examples include the security  and political situation in areas without an iTSCi presence and the risks  and performance, relative to the OECD Due Diligence Guidance and the  SEC rule, of stakeholders that are part of, or play a role in monitoring, the  conflict minerals supply chain.
A comparison of production data from the conflict-free sourcing initiatives  in the context of each country’s or the region’s total production or exports  of tin, tantalum, tungsten, or gold is not feasible, because no reliable,  comprehensive data on the production or export of conflict minerals for  the countries or region are available. However, some quantitative  government data on the production and exports of conflict minerals from  the DRC and adjoining countries are available (see app. V). For example,  the DRC government has published data on production and exports of all  four conflict minerals and the Rwandan government has published export  and value data for tin, tantalum, and tungsten. In addition, the  International Trade Centre, a joint agency of the World Trade  Organization and the UN, collects export data from governments that  provide some context for the amount of conflict minerals declared as  exported from the region, although these data do not identify minerals  from conflict-free mines (see app. VI).
Some stakeholders indicated that the ICGLR may, at some point, be able  to provide production and export data of conflict minerals from its member  states, mostly Dodd-Frank-affected countries. This information could  increase transparency at the individual country level. ICGLR requires its  member states to implement a chain-of-custody tracking system for  conflict minerals and to transmit data on mineral flows (i.e., quantities and  destinations) at regular intervals to be incorporated in the ICGLR  Regional Mineral Tracking Database. According to an ICGLR official, this  database is populated with three types of information: (1) a historical  record of mine sites in each country, (2) types and quantities of minerals  produced at each mine site, and (3) mineral flows from the mine sites.  According to ICGLR documentation, the data are used to track, analyze,  and reconcile regional mineral flows and will become publicly available to  ensure ICGLR’s credibility. In November 2013, the ICGLR official stated  that four of the 12 member countries had submitted information for the  regional database: Rwanda, Uganda, the DRC, and, to a lesser extent,  Burundi.
section_title: Little Additional Information on Rate of Sexual Violence in Eastern DRC and Adjoining Countries since July 2013
paragraphs: Since we reported in July 2013, no new population-based surveys related  to sexual violence in the DRC, Uganda, Rwanda, or Burundi have been  published. However, population-based surveys are underway, or being  planned, in three of those countries—the DRC, Burundi, and Rwanda. In  addition, some new case file data on sexual violence are available for all  four countries. However, as we reported in 2011, case file data on sexual  violence are not suitable for estimating a rate of sexual violence.
subsections: section_title: Several Population-Based Surveys Are Underway or Planned
paragraphs: Although no new surveys related to sexual violence in the DRC, Uganda,  Rwanda, or Burundi have been published since July 2013, population- based surveys in the DRC, Burundi, and Rwanda are underway or  planned by ICF International. According to ICF International, data  collection for a Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), which is a type of  population-based survey, for the DRC is complete, but data resulting from  the survey are not expected until September 2014 or later. ICF  International also said that fieldwork for a DHS in Rwanda is likely to start  in September or October 2014. ICF International indicated that a DHS is  planned to start in Burundi in 2014; however, data collection may be  delayed by funding gaps and, as a result, the survey may not take place  until 2015.
Figure 4 shows the anticipated timelines for the population-based surveys  on sexual violence that are currently underway or planned in the DRC,  Burundi, and Rwanda. It also shows the publication dates for eight  population-based surveys that provided data on the rate of sexual  violence in eastern DRC, Rwanda, and Uganda that have been published  since we started reporting on sexual violence in the region in 2011.
section_title: Some Additional Case File Data on Sexual Violence Have Become Available since GAO’s 2013 Report
paragraphs: Since 2013, some U.S. and UN agencies as well as researchers and an  NGO have provided additional case file data on instances of sexual  violence in the DRC and adjoining countries. In February 2014, State  submitted its annual country reports on human rights practices to  Congress, which provided the following data pertaining to sexual violence  in the DRC, Burundi, and Uganda. For example,  In the DRC, the government reported 18,729 cases of sexual violence  in 2012.  In Burundi, 3,781 cases of gender-based violence were reported in  2010, according to a report compiled from family development centers  throughout the country.  In Uganda, 530 cases of rape were registered in 2012, and 301 of the  alleged rapists were tried and convicted.
In addition, some UN entities reported case file information. For example:
MONUSCO reported that between October 1, 2013, and December 5,  2013, it recorded acts of sexual violence against at least 79 women  and 28 girls in conflict-affected provinces in the DRC.
MONUSCO reported in March 2014 that sexual violence crimes  continued to be committed by armed groups and that such crimes  were allegedly committed against at least four women, 35 girls, and  one man by elements of illegal armed forces and members of the  Congolese military and police in January 2014.
The United Nations Joint Human Rights Office reported in April 2014  that between the period of January 2010 and December 2013, it  registered 3,635 victims of sexual violence throughout the DRC. The  report indicated that, for the reporting period, while more than half of  the total alleged acts of sexual violence were committee by illegal  armed groups, members of the Congolese national military committed  less than half of the other alleged acts.
Moreover, the DRC government reported case file information. For  example:
A report published in June 2013 by the DRC Ministry of Gender, the  Family, and Child, with support by the UN Population Fund,  highlighted cases of sexual violence in seven provinces in the country:  Bandundu, Bas Congo, Katanga, Kinshasa, North Kivu, Orientale, and  South Kivu. Data in the report indicate that 10,322 incidents of  sexual and gender-based violence were reported for the seven  provinces in 2011 and that the number increased to 15,654 incidents  in 2012. While the data also indicate that most of these assaults were  committed by people dressed in civilian clothes—85 percent in 2011  and 78 percent in 2012—incidents involving armed groups between  2011 and 2012 increased in South Kivu from 36 to 76 percent,  respectively, and in North Kivu from 32 to 61 percent, respectively.
An NGO also published case file information. For example:
Médecins sans Frontières reported in March 2014 that in 2012 it  provided medical care to a total of 4,037 women, men, and children  after incidents of sexual violence in different project locations in the  DRC. It reported treating, in a 5-week period in late 2012 through  early 2013, 95 of those individuals in one camp for Internally  Displaced People in North Kivu.
Several factors make case file data unsuitable for estimating rates of  sexual violence. First, because case file data are not aggregated across  various sources, and because the extent to which various reports overlap  is unclear, it is difficult to obtain complete data, or a sense of magnitude,  from case files. Second, in case file data as well as surveys, time frames,  locales, and definitions of sexual violence may be inconsistent across  data collection operations. Third, case file data are not based on a  random sample and the results of analyzing these data are not  generalizable.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The long-running humanitarian crisis in eastern DRC, one of the most  volatile areas in Africa, continues to be a concern for the U.S. government  and the international community. As we have previously reported, section  1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection  Act, enacted in 2010, is part of the U.S. effort to address the perpetration  of sexual violence and mass killings in the DRC by armed groups who  profit from the exploitation and trading of conflict minerals. We have  compiled stakeholder data on the production and trade of conflict  minerals that demonstrates, to some extent, the degree of transparency  related to the conflict minerals trade. The actions undertaken by U.S.  agencies in response to the Act could facilitate SEC-reporting companies’  compliance with the SEC rule, promulgated pursuant to the Act, as they  conduct due diligence and prepare the required annual reports disclosing  the use and the origin of conflict minerals in their products. However,  because Commerce has not met the Act’s requirement that it compile by  January 2013 a list of smelters and refiners—considered the “choke  point” of the conflict minerals supply chain—these companies lack a  source of critical information about the conflict minerals supply chain.
Some stakeholders indicated that a comprehensive list of conflict  minerals smelters and refiners could enable companies that are subject to  the SEC rule to maintain transparency of the supply chain, and also  provide companies the information they need for their SEC-required  conflict minerals disclosure reports. Commerce cited several challenges  that have hindered its providing the required list to Congress. However,  having an action plan with associated timeframes could better position  Commerce to report on the status of its efforts to produce a final list and  provide it to Congress and to hold its personnel accountable for  completing related activities.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To give Congress a sense of Commerce’s efforts to produce a listing of  all known conflict minerals processing facilities worldwide, as required by  section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer  Protection Act, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce provide  to Congress a plan that outlines the steps, with associated timeframes, to  develop and report the required information about smelters and refiners of  conflict minerals worldwide.
section_title: Agency and Third Party Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to SEC, State, USAID, and Commerce  for their review. Commerce provided written comments, which we have  reproduced in appendix VII. SEC and State provided technical comments,  which we incorporated as appropriate. We also provided relevant portions  of the draft report to some industry associations and other stakeholders of  conflict minerals initiatives from whom we had obtained information during  our review; some of these stakeholders provided technical comments that  we incorporated as appropriate.
In its written comments, Commerce noted in response to our  recommendation that it had provided and briefed us on a detailed  outreach action plan that set forth how it intended to assemble the list of  conflict minerals processing facilities required by the Act. However, as we  have noted in this report, the document that Commerce provided was an  outreach plan, consisting of a list of stakeholders that Commerce  intended to contact to obtain information on conflict minerals smelters and  refiners. The plan did not indicate a timeframe for completing and  submitting to Congress the required listing of conflict minerals processing  facilities worldwide. Commerce concurred with our recommendation and  noted that it will submit a listing of all known conflict minerals processing  facilities worldwide to Congress by September 1, 2014.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional  committees. The report is also available at no charge on the GAO website  at http://www.gao.gov/.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix VIII.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine the extent, if any, to which relevant U.S. agencies have  engaged in activities related to responsible sourcing of conflict minerals,  we interviewed officials who are cognizant of conflict minerals issues from  the Departments of Commerce and State (State) and the United States  Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Securities and  Exchange Commission (SEC). We reviewed Section 1502 of the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. No. 111- 203) to identify the requirements for Commerce, State, SEC, and USAID  related to implementation of section 1502. We also reviewed and  analyzed reports and other documents from the agencies, such as the  U.S. Strategy to Address the Linkages Between Human Rights Abuses,  Armed Groups, Mining of Conflict Minerals, and Commercial Products;  the conflict minerals rule; and maps of mineral-rich zones and areas  under control of armed groups in the DRC. In addition, we reviewed and  analyzed press releases, statements, plans, and guidance pertaining to  conflict minerals and responsible sourcing that were issued by U.S.  agencies. We also reviewed notes and agendas of responsible sourcing  forums and other meetings attended by U.S. officials.
To analyze what is known about the status of, and any information  provided by, initiatives focused on responsible sourcing of conflict  minerals from the DRC and adjoining countries, we interviewed officials  and reviewed and analyzed documents from State, USAID, and the  United Nations Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the  Congo (UNGoE); interviewed representatives and reviewed and analyzed  guidance documents, reports, and presentations from foreign  government, industry associations, multilateral organizations, companies,  and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). We selected these  stakeholders based on their expertise on responsible sourcing issues,  because they represented a range of perspectives on conflict minerals,  and because we had established contacts with these entities on our last  review. In addition, some of the stakeholders we talked to have been  working on the ground in the DRC. The stakeholders we spoke with  constitute a nongeneralizable sample, and the information we gathered  from them cannot be used to infer views of other stakeholders cognizant  of conflict minerals issues. To determine which initiatives had expanded  and which were new initiatives in the region, we interviewed U.S. agency  officials and relevant stakeholders and reviewed documentation from  initiatives in the region. This report covers initiatives on which we have  previously reported and new initiatives since our 2013 report, as  described by stakeholders we interviewed. However, it is possible that  the agency officials and stakeholders with whom we spoke may be  unaware of other stakeholders and/or responsible sourcing initiatives  active in the DRC and region. To determine the starting dates of the  initiatives, we interviewed stakeholders and reviewed the websites of the  various initiatives. To demonstrate what information stakeholders have  reported regarding responsible sourcing initiatives, we reviewed and  analyzed information published on the websites associated with the  various responsible sourcing initiatives. When reporting on information  provided by the initiatives and stakeholders, we are referring to  information such as reports published, amount of minerals mined per  region/country, amount of minerals exported, and value of minerals  produced and exported, including data covering 2012 through 2014. The  information gathered cannot be generalized and cannot be used to infer  views of other stakeholders cognizant of conflict minerals issues.
To demonstrate other sources of publicly available data on conflict  minerals, we collected and analyzed stakeholder and government data  covering 2003 through 2014. Because the data were not used to support  findings, conclusions, or recommendations, we did not assess their  reliability. To demonstrate the output of one of the in-region initiatives, we  collected production and export data for the ITRI Supply Chain Initiative  (iTSCi). We reviewed the production reports for three provinces in the  DRC and for Rwanda published on iTSCi’s website, abbreviated the data  to include those most relevant to this study, and converted the data to  tons and thousands of U.S. dollars. A limitation of the data is that the  disaggregated production data–by mineral and mine–are proprietary to  iSTCi members, so it is not possible to quantify the total amount of any of  the minerals separately. We also collected conflict mineral production and  export data from the websites of the governments of the DRC and  Rwanda and from the International Trade Centre. We are presenting  these data in the appendixes of the report because these are the only  publicly available data we found for sourcing conflict minerals from the  region. There is no distinction in these data between minerals that are  conflict-free and those that have supported armed groups. Moreover,  none of these data can be generalized or be used to infer the total  production or export of conflict minerals from the DRC and the adjoining  countries.
In response to a mandate in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and  Consumer Protection Act that GAO submit an annual report that  assesses the rate of sexual violence in war-torn areas of the DRC and  adjoining countries, we identified and assessed any additional published  information available on sexual violence in war-torn eastern DRC, as well  as three adjoining countries that border the DRC—Rwanda, Uganda, and  Burundi—since our 2013 report on sexual violence in these areas.  During the course of our review, we interviewed officials from State and  USAID and interviewed NGO representatives and researchers to discuss  the collection of sexual violence-related data—including population-based  surveys and case file data—in the DRC and adjoining countries.  Specifically, we followed up with researchers and representatives from  those groups we interviewed for our prior review on sexual violence rates  in eastern DRC and adjoining countries, including a representative from  the Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley, School  of Law and others officials. The team also traveled to New York City to  meet with officials from the United Nations Population Fund, United  Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the United Nations Special  Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict.  We also conducted Internet literature searches to identify new academic  articles containing any additional information on sexual violence since our  2013 report.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2013 to June 2014  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: State Department Map of Armed Groups Present at Mine Sites in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
paragraphs: Figure 5 depicts the most recent map published by the Department of  State. The map focuses on the exploitation of tin, tantalum, tungsten, and  gold in the provinces of North and South Kivu and parts of Orientale,  Maniema, and Katanga provinces.
section_title: Appendix III: SEC Flowchart Summary of the Disclosure Process for the Final Conflict Minerals Rule
paragraphs: When the SEC adopted the conflict minerals rule in August 2012, it  published a flowchart summary of the final rule to guide SEC-reporting  companies affected by the rule through the disclosure process (see fig 6).  In general, the process reflects that an SEC-reporting company needs to  (1) determine whether its manufactured products contain conflict  minerals, (2) determine whether conflict minerals are necessary to the  functionality or production of the product and if it originated in the DRC or  an adjoining country, and (3) possibly conduct due diligence and  potentially provide a Conflict Minerals Report.
section_title: Appendix IV: Sample Data from the ITRI Supply Chain Initiative
paragraphs: The ITRI Supply Chain Initiative (iTSCi) publishes qualitative and  quantitative information on its projects in the DRC and Rwanda on its  website. The information includes production data for minerals that have  been mined and traded employing the iTSCi traceability system, audits of  iTSCi member companies, and assessments of the political and security  situation in various sites in the DRC and Rwanda. The mineral production  and export data include minerals mined under the auspices of other  stakeholder-led initiatives in the region. Almost all of the initiatives employ  the iTSCi traceability system to track the mining and trading of minerals  along the supply chain.
One limitation of the data is that the production data–disaggregated by  mineral and mine–are proprietary to iSTCi members. Therefore, it is not  possible to quantify the total quantity or value of any of the minerals  separately.
Tables 2-7 provide iTSCi production in metric tons and mineral sales in  thousands of U.S. dollars for tin, tungsten, and tantalum coming from  several provinces in the DRC, including Maniema, South Kivu, and  Katanga.
Tables 8 and 9 provide iTSCi production in tons and mineral sales in  thousands of U.S. dollars for tin, tungsten and tantalum in Rwanda.
section_title: Appendix V: Conflict Mineral Production and Export Data as Reported by the DRC and Rwandan Governments
paragraphs: The DRC Ministry of Mines published data on the volume of production  and exports for tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold for 2003-2012 (see  tables 10-13).
The Rwanda Natural Resources Authority published data on the volume  and value of tin, tantalum and tungsten exported from Rwanda from  January to August of 2013 (see tables 14 and 15).
section_title: Appendix VI: Conflict Minerals Data from the International Trade Centre Data on Global Conflict Mineral Imports
paragraphs: The International Trade Centre (ITC), a joint agency of the World Trade  Organization and the United Nations (UN) compiles a Trade Map with  data including the global exports in tons and export value of tin, tantalum,  tungsten and gold from the DRC and adjoining countries, as available for  fiscal years 2009-2013 (see tables 16-31 for ITC data as of June 2014).
The ITC calculated these data using the UN Commodity Trade Statistics  Database, which compiles trade data from UN member countries.
These data do not provide a comprehensive depiction of the flow of  conflict minerals exported from the DRC and adjoining countries; rather,  they are an estimate based on imports data from reporting partner  countries. Furthermore, these data may include imports of conflict  minerals that have financed armed groups.
In many instances, there are no data listed for a particular mineral or  year. There were no data for import volume or value of conflict minerals in  the ITC database for the Republic of the Congo (Congo-Brazzaville) or  South Sudan.
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Commerce
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Godwin Agbara (Assistant  Director), Russ Burnett, Etana Finkler, Justin Fisher, Julia Jebo Grant,  Ernie Jackson, Jill Lacey, Reid Lowe, Andrea Riba Miller, and John  O’Trakoun made key contributions to this report.