Banning minerals from DRC?

As a follow-up to my previous blogs on the conflict in DRC and the mining operations that fuel it, I found yet another article (a popular news item of late). It argues that "banning" minerals from DRC is a mistake because it will cut many ordinary citizens off from the only livelihood available to them. He makes the very apt point that the situation in DRC cannot be compared to Sierra Leone's blood diamonds. Instead, he argues for better support of good governance:

"There are a number of people who are actors in this trade because the trade serves their profit motives. So, if we can put the right incentives in place for these actors to also benefit in peacetime from these trades, then we could form a constituency that would allow us to reform the trade and ultimately disconnect it from the military aspect that currently has a severe negative impact on the trade, as such."

With the combination of difficult terrain and widespread insecurity, how can any organization be imposed on the mining operations? Garrett says, "Ultimately, the main reason why a number of these armed groups, including the Congolese army, are allowed to benefit from this trade is the general lack of governance in eastern Congo, which is ultimately due to the severe under-capacity of the Congolese institutions."

He calls on the international community to support and help rebuilding Congolese institutions "to lay the foundation for a large reform process." This includes a well-trained, well-paid national army. "Unfortunately, at the present, the Congolese army is a major source of insecurity instead of a force for order," he says."
(read the full article here )

I agree that there is great nuance in the people and motives involved. But what incentives can be given to the group which is making a lot of money out of doing nothing but being threatening with little chance of reprisal? The banning option takes away the profit, which is probably the easiest and quickest method to impact them, but has the unfortunate side effect of taking away the income of people trying to make an honest living by mining. As such the long-term impact could be increased poverty, which generally leads to increased violence and vulnerability, and more poverty.

Is it possible to design a policy that is effective and that does not ban all minerals from DRC? Wherein mineral purchases are restricted to select companies or organisations that monitor where the minerals come from, who is mining them, and who is controlling the mine? Building local cooperatives could help significantly if there was a structure in place to ensure rebels and the military did not infiltrate them. Of course, this process requires more time and money to set up and monitor initially, but how much is the international community spending now on aid in the refugee camps and the UN peace keeping mission? Prevention is always more cost-effective than a response after-the-fact. Pro-active planning and spending could save a lot of money in the long run if it helps to build sustainable peace.