From September 8 to 10, the 65th General Assembly of the International Tantalum and Niobium Association (TIC) was held at the Hilton Hotel in Odaiba, Tokyo. On Day 2 (September 10), Josue Ruiz of RBA/RMI gave a presentation titled “Guide to Utilizing ITSCI Supporting Information.” Although the topic centered around supporting ITSCI, the discussion escalated into questions about the roles of RBA and RMI themselves, leading to a heated debate. Personally, I felt the conflict between ITSCI and RMI became quite apparent.

 

 

Josue has over 16 years of experience in responsible sourcing, overseeing technical initiatives and R&D efforts. He is certified in several standards, including The Copper Mark, TSM, ICMM, LBMA, and RJC, and has led global audit programs for Fortune 500 companies. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences with a focus on sustainable development and a bachelor’s degree in economics.

 

(Agenda)

The Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) process provides essential guidance for facilities sourcing minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas (CAHRAs). This is particularly relevant for facilities in the Great Lakes Region (GLR), where sourcing challenges are significant. To address these challenges, the Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI) has developed the iTSCi Diagnostic Tool.

The iTSCi Diagnostic Tool is a key component of RMI’s specialized technical assistance designed to support facilities using iTSCi for EDD. It offers a structured approach to identifying additional measures beyond what iTSCi alone provides. This tool is tailored to help facilities ensure compliance with RMAP standards, enhance transparency, and address specific risks associated with mineral sourcing in CAHRAs.

This presentation focused on the iTSCi Diagnostic Tool, explaining its role, purpose, and scope. It detailed how the tool integrates with the EDD process to provide comprehensive support for facilities navigating the complexities of responsible mineral sourcing. The presentation highlighted key aspects of the tool’s functionality, its compliance benefits, and its impact on improving due diligence practices.

 

 

RBM(Responsible Business Alliance) Founded in 2004, RBA now has over 500 member companies, including global giants such as Apple, Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Intel, DELL, HP, TDK, Tesla, and Toyota.

https://www.responsiblebusiness.org/about/members/

 

Josue emphasized that additional EDD steps are necessary when sourcing minerals from high-risk areas.

 

(Responsible Minerals Assurance Process - RMAP)

 

Unlike ITSCI, RMAP has different standards, including five main requirements. For minerals sourced from conflict-affected and high-risk regions, additional due diligence (DD) is necessary.

Identifying specific risks is crucial. In cases where additional requirements arise, such as exporters or suppliers operating in CAHRAs (Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas), additional checks are required.

 

Several questions were raised from the audience during Josue Ruiz’s presentation.

 

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

Before delving into the ITSCI vs. RMI debate, it’s important to clarify the differences between their roles and positions.

Both RMI and ITSCI share the goal of responsible sourcing through the implementation of OECD Due Diligence Guidelines for conflict-affected and high-risk areas. In December 2022, a positive dialogue was initiated between the two organizations. The OECD Due Diligence Guidelines provide guidance to companies on respecting human rights and avoiding contributing to conflicts through their mineral purchases. Both organizations pledged to continue dialogues and communication with members, audit targets, and stakeholders.

 

(International Tin Association＝https://www.itsci.org/）

 

ITSCI is a private sector organization aiming to establish a responsible mineral supply chain that does not contribute to conflicts, human rights violations, or other risks. ITSCI is currently focused on monitoring tin, tantalum, and tungsten in Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda, working with local suppliers in high-risk areas and international supply chains. ITSCI also engages in OECD Due Diligence and conducts independent audits of smelters and suppliers in its program.

 

Debate Points between RMI and ITSCI

Key issues of contention include:

•  RMI’s recognition of ITSCI as an upstream system.

•  RMAP audit evidence for smelters’ due diligence on sourcing from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas (CAHRA)

•  ITSCI’s second alignment assessment.

 

Background Reasons for the Dispute:

RMI removed iTSCi from its list of approved programs because the validity of its OECD alignment assessment (AA) expired at the end of October 2022. RMI had originally approved iTSCi in 2018 based on a three-year OECD alignment assessment. This decision was surprising to iTSCi and may have significantly contributed to the detailed discussions mentioned above with RMI.

Smelters that have relied on iTSCi to ensure their minerals are conflict-free will now need to conduct additional due diligence to meet RMI’s standard requirements. iTSCi is concerned that this development may have negative effects, potentially leading companies to withdraw from the current 3TG initiative.

iTSCi has consistently claimed that its standards have not changed and that it remains 100% compliant with OECD due diligence. It also asserts that over the past two years, it has been in continuous discussions with RMI regarding certification and has responded promptly to RMI’s requests for reapplication for approval.

 

•  Companies like iTSCi, which have chosen to provide due diligence support to local smelters, are required to conduct alignment assessments on a regular basis. Commitment to OECD due diligence does not guarantee that they will remain on the RMI approved list.

•  Companies providing third-party due diligence services must maintain regular communication with organizations such as RMI, as well as with relevant stakeholders and auditees, to bridge any gaps in understanding.

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

 

Question from the audience:

In response to the question, “Wouldn’t it be sufficient to use the iTSCi program? It seems redundant.”, Mr. Joseu responded:

“We need to check small-scale operators and traders. While it would be ideal if everything could be covered by iTSCi, unfortunately, it isn’t always the case.”

 

Second question:

“50% of the supply chain consists of very small, family-run businesses and traders. How do you address this?”

Mr. Joseu responded:

“It’s possible that those individuals may be engaged in illegal business. While some countries allow sourcing from individuals, it’s generally recommended to source from cooperatives.”

 

Question from iTSCi:

“Frankly, I’m a bit disappointed. I can’t judge comments or tools that I’m not familiar with, but there’s some misunderstanding about iTSCi. We want people to understand the work we do.

There was a question about why we’re not sharing information. In our view, joint initiatives are the most efficient way forward. What RMI is doing overlaps with what iTSCi is already doing.

Our biggest concern is that unnecessary regulatory tightening could prevent companies from buying resources from Africa. Some corporate statements are even leading to embargoes,” they expressed with concern.

They added:

“I’m interested in KYC (Know Your Counterparty) processes, which identify upstream suppliers and conduct investigations in accordance with RMAP standards. However, it’s contradictory. It’s practically impossible to collect KYC data on individuals. iTSCi is already covering much of the supply chain. There’s a lot of overlap. Instead of returning to the resource embargoes on Africa like in 2010, we should establish new rules.”

 

In response, Mr. Joseu from RBA/RMI stated:

“We support supply chains by using additional rules. The aim is to use the correct evidence so that sourcing can still be done from high-risk areas. Using iTSCi documentation is not redundant. If we’re not able to get information from iTSCi, we’ll have to use different tools.

As I’ve said many times, the goal is to get the correct evidence. If information is lacking, we need tools that can store and manage that data.”

The questions from the audience continued:

“People here (in the audience) are asking for a simplification of the certification system. What’s different from the existing programs? Please clarify that. Also, what are the practical requirements for the facilities? RMI needs to have conversations with the facilities, don’t you think?”

 

 TIC's Dan then pressed the issue further,

 “How is it fair that an advisor (presumably referring to Apple) who has publicly   stated that they won’t accept raw materials from Congo and Rwanda is a   member of RMI’s board? Isn’t that unfair?”

 Mr. Joseu responded:

 “I’m not entirely sure, but in my view, the facility needs due diligence to ensure   compliance.”

 Dan continued to press:

 “It is deeply concerning that a member of RMI’s advisory board holds an       opposing view to suppliers. Are they planning to impose an embargo on     resources from Rwanda and Congo? What is RMI’s true role? The issue is that   there’s a board member hinting at an embargo within RMI. Clearly, something is   wrong.” Dan pointed out, becoming somewhat agitated. The heated presentation ended with a promise for another meeting to be held.

 

 

 

 

(IRUNIVERSE YUJI TANAMACHI)

 

Related articles