We, movements, Indigenous Peoples, and Civil Society Organizations, particularly but not exclusively from resource-rich countries in the Global South, are very concerned due to the lack of strong due diligence terminology and safeguards for the sourcing of raw materials in the Critical Raw Materials Act and other related legislation.

We, in resource-rich countries, are already experiencing the double impacts of the climate crisis, on one hand via the effects of climate change itself and on the other hand from the increase in mining and renewable technologies infrastructure resulting from decarbonisation plans of rich countries. The EU’s decarbonisation ambition is laudable, but to be just and fair, it has to follow the rule of law and its associated legislations have to adhere to the highest standards, including the respect of human
rights, Indigenous Peoples’ rights and environmental protection, not only within the European Union, but in other resource-rich countries – including our lands and communities.

The Critical Raw Materials Act and other related legislation, such as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, among others, will have a direct impact on our health and well-being, cultural practices, traditions and values, livelihoods, and environment. People are regularly killed attempting to safeguard the environment we rely on.

For this reason, we ask you to take a human rights-based approach to decarbonisation and ensure that all rights holders and stakeholders in resource-rich countries, not only governments and the private sector, are involved in the process in a full and meaningful way. More specifically, we ask you to set the following minimum conditions for strategic projects and the sourcing of raw materials from resource-rich countries:

1) Respect human rights, Indigenous rights and adhere to international human and environmental rights legislation, agreements, and standards, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ILO Conventions as well as the full Aarhus convention, the Escazú agreement as well as the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. The CRMA should ensure that companies adhere to strict mandatory Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence.

2) Ensure that strategic partnerships are formed and run in a democratic manner
Negotiations for strategic partnerships should be announced in a timely fashion and agreements with resource-rich countries should be disclosed prior to approval. The CRMA should address the high corruption risk in the mining sector.

3) Meaningful participation and accountability
Rights holders, especially Indigenous Peoples, civil society organisations and local communities, must have a stake in the governance of the CRMA and should be able to participate in the definition and monitoring of strategic projects and partnerships.

4) Minimum requirements for strategic projects
The environmental and social impacts of mining and other projects related to the energy transition should be assessed during the permitting process and projects cannot go ahead without concerned Indigenous Peoples’ Free, Prior Informed Consent.

Companies participating in strategic projects should have in place a clear, easily accessible, and safe grievance mechanism and a history of human rights abuses or environmental destruction should lead to the exclusion of companies. There should be a mechanism to facilitate access to justice for victims of corporate abuse and strict
sanctions for companies that fail their due diligence obligations. Instead of using self-regulation through certification schemes, companies must be monitored by governments and a neutral third party.

5) Respect our cultural practices, traditions and values, our lifestyles, and our environment
Strategic projects should respect no-go zones, including protected areas, the deep-sea, and sacred sites. Regulations on conflict minerals and minerals extracted through forced or child labour must be enforced and adopted respectively.

6) We should not just be treated as raw material suppliers
Set clear goals and clarify what it means to add value through strategic partnerships. Furthermore, support the development of our countries through climate finance, knowledge and technology transfer, the provision for local procurement and ensuring that companies pay taxes in host countries and create decent jobs.

7) Take responsibility for reducing the EU’s own consumption
In turn, this will reduce the demand for raw materials from our countries. Taking these concerns into account will be crucial to ensure climate and resource justice on a global scale. The CRMA could be an opportunity for the European Union to promote a just energy transition that pays off the historical ecological debt owed to the countries of the Global South and respects their
development models.

We urge you to take these recommendations into consideration, as the policy decisions regarding the Critical Raw Materials Act will have a large impact on our lives.

Sincerely,

Signatories:

– AbibiNsroma Foundation
– Action Mines Guinée
– African Resources Watch (AFREWATCH)
– Aksi Ekologi & Emansipasi Rakyat (AEER), Indonesia
– Alliance Voahary Gasy (AVG)
– alterNativa Intercanvi amb Pobles Indígenes
– Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM)
– Asia Dalit Rights Forum (ADRF)
– Bench Marks Foundation
– Cadre de Concertation de la société civile de l’Ituri sur les Ressources Naturelles
– CartoCrítica (México)
– Centre congolais pour le droit du développement durable (CODED)
– Centro de Análisis Socioambiental (CASA}, Chile
– Christi – Perú
– Coalition des Organisations de la Société Civile pour le Suivi des Réformes et de l’Action Publique
(CORAP)
– Coalition Nationale de Plaidoyer Environnemental (CNPE)
– Coalition Publiez Ce Que Vous Payez-Mali (PCQVP-MALI)
– Comité Nacional pro Defensa de la Fauna y Flora
– CooperAcción
– Cordillera Women’s Education Action Research Center (CWEARC)
– Corporate Europe Observatory
– Crudo Transparente
– Cultural Survival
– Debt Observatory in Globalisation (ODG)
– Derecho Ambiente y Recursos Naturales
– Ecosistemas
– Engenera, A.C.
– Enginyeria sense Fronteres
– Focus Association for Sustainable Development
– Forest Peoples Programme
– Forests of the World
– Fundación Ciudadanía y Desarrollo – TI Ecuador
– Fundación Foro Nacional por Colombia – Capítulo Suroccidente
– Fundación Terram
– Funprosperiti Guatecivica
– Future-Prenuers Zambia (FPSZ)
– Global Witness
– Grupo Propuesta Ciudadana
– Indonesia for Global Justice (IGJ)
– Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense -AIDA
– Lafede.cat – Organitzacions per a la Justícia Global
– Legisladores x el Ambiente ALC
– Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI)
– Observatoire d’Etudes et d’Appui à la Responsabilité Sociale et Environnementale (OEARSE)
– Observatorio Petrolero Sur
– Pakistan Development Alliance
– Perkumpulan HuMa Indonesia
– Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement
– Pole Institute (DR Congo)
– Policy Forum Guyana
– Publiez Ce Que Vous Payez Madagascar
– Publish What You Pay Zambia
– Red de Información y Acción Ambiental de Veracruz, México
– Réseau panafricain de lutte contre la corruption “UNIS”
– Resource Matters
– Satya Bumi
– Securing Indigenous Peoples Rights in the Green Economy (SIRGE) Coalition
– SETEM Catalunya
– Solidaritat Castelldefels Kasando
– Southern Africa Human Rights Defenders Network
– Spaces for Change
– TAFOMIHAAVO
– Transparency International Initiative Madagascar
– Transparency International Zambia
– Trend Asia
– Universidad nacional de Colombia, Facultad de minas Medellín, Centro de pensamiento responsabilidad y sostenibilidad minera

This past October there was an outbreak of COVID-19 at the Foxconn factory in Zhengzhou in China, the largest complex that produces iPhones for Apple, which houses different production plants. At the time, a spokesperson for Apple’s supplier said the impact was manageable and conditions at the factory were stable. However, the company prioritized maintaining production, rather than protecting workers from the outbreak. This unleashed further contagion, to which the company responded with very strict confinement measures.

On Monday, November 7, The Wall Street Journal published a report based on interviews with more than two dozen Foxconn workers and their family members, and the company’s announcements on its WeChat account.

Employees alleged that they began to comply with quarantine on October 7, and that they could not leave their production unit for 27 hours, until they were transferred to a new block of bedrooms in the complex, where they were quarantined for a few days. The workers complained about the lack of food and medicine supplies for the infected people. The situation reached such a point that, on October 28, many decided to leave the factory, on their own feet or using government buses to take them home. Foxconn offered five incentives for people who changed their minds and went back to work.

The iPhone manufacturer has not disclosed the number of COVID cases that have occurred. The company reportedly downplayed the dangers of contracting the virus, sharing statements from medical experts on the female workforce.

Some people did not believe that people returning to work after quarantine had still tested negative. Instead, one rumor claimed it was a plan to mix COVID patients with healthy people to promote herd immunity.

This episode highlights the tension between the need to continue bussiness activities and China’s desire to maintain the 0 COVID-19 policy. In much of the world, it seems that the COVID-19 pandemic is already winding down, but in China the situation is not yet back to normal.

A petition of signatures has been organized calling for Apple to take its responsibility to fully investigate the incident at Foxconn’s Zhengzhou factory. We ask these questions to be answered under an independent investigation authorized by Apple:

1. In mid-October, outbreaks occurred at the factory, creating harsh conditions that affected even those who were not infected. Why did Foxconn wait until October 30 to acknowledge this? What was Foxconn hiding, and why?
   

2. How many Foxconn workers contracted COVID-19 in October?

3. How many Foxconn workers died in October? What are the causes of death?
   

4. Who authorized the order prohibiting the workers from leaving the factory in October? What was the reason?
   

5. Why were the infected workers not given medical supplies?

6. Why were there cases in the distribution of essential products in the factory area?

7. What were Foxconn’s standards for housing conditions for workers during lockdown? How many people were isolated in October?
   

8. Why weren’t there enough isolation areas equipped with adequate basic supplies for workers?

9. How many temporary workers does the Zhengzhou Foxconn factory currently hire? Why don’t they have another type of contract?
   

10. Is there evidence of forced labor during the closed loop production period?

11. Are there workers whose movements have been forcibly restricted during the closed circuit production period? Who were the people who implemented these policies?

Sign the petition here!

Sources:

• The Wall Street Journal – Apple iPhone Assembler Tried to Ease Worker Fears About Covid—It Led to a Tighter Lockdown
  
• The Guardian – China braces for wave of workers fleeing iPhone factory in Covid-hit Zhengzhou
• AppleInsider – Foxconn reportedly downplayed severity of recent COVID outbreak
  
• Reuters – EXCLUSIVE Output of Apple iPhones at major China plant could fall 30% amid COVID curbs -source

Videos:

• China Insights – Zhengzhou Foxconn Factory: 10,000+ workers flee covid lockdown/Apple iPhone Production Plunges
  China Insights – Zhengzhou Foxconn workers keep on fleeing and now China locks down area around ‘iPhone city’