The Kimberley Process has faced criticism for more than a decade for its definition of ‘conflict diamonds’, which has been described as archaic and ill-fitting.
This ‘war of words’ has only intensified over the past three years after the conflict between Russia and Ukraine placed pressure on the international diamonds industry. After a five-day meeting in Dubai among the organisation’s 86 members, the Kimberley Process has once again failed to reach an agreement on a new definition.
During an opening address in Dubai, World Diamond Council president Feriel Zerouki called for change. In a recent interview with The Times, she acknowledged the organisation's shortcomings.
“I’m a huge supporter of the Kimberley Process because of the way that it works, but I’m the first one who says it’s not perfect,” she said.
“It was created at a time when there were wars in Angola, wars in Sierra Leone, and it intervened then, which is why now there is no war in Angola that’s being funded by diamonds and there is no war in Sierra Leone that’s being funded by diamonds.
“It’s a victim of its own success, and the expectation for many out there is that it should do more.”
The Kimberley Process was introduced in 2003 and is intended to limit the trade of conflict diamonds, a broad term for rough diamonds mined in areas of armed conflict and traded to finance violence.
As mentioned, the Kimberley Process has long faced criticism for a variety of reasons. In 2011, Global Witness, the human rights organisation that played a key role in establishing the organisation, withdrew as an official observer.
“Right now, the world that we live in is highly politicised, and topics that don’t fall within the Kimberley Process, unfortunately, are bleeding into the discussions that we’re having within the Kimberley Process,” Zerouki explained.
“So any government can veto this extremely important change for reasons that have nothing to do with diamonds and nothing to do with the mandate of the Kimberley Process, and that’s the big concern of the diamond industry.”
Earlier this month, IMPACT, an organisation that oversees natural resources management in areas where human rights violations are a concern, published a damning statement criticising the Kimberley Process for a range of reasons.
“Amid persisting concerns over how mineral exploitation is entangled with conflict, human rights abuses, smuggling, and corruption, the Kimberley Process (KP) keeps resurfacing as a go-to model,” the statement explains.
“The KP’s track record exposes its structural flaws and reveals why it has not been – and should not be – replicated for other minerals, where governance has shifted toward due diligence approaches. These put companies, not governments, in the driver’s seat and focus on ongoing risk identification, prevention and mitigation.”
The statement highlights seven key flaws in the Kimberley Process model and concludes by acknowledging that, while systematic change can be a slow process, it can be transformative. Similar concerns were raised by the Kimberley Process Civil Society Coalition following the plenary in Dubai.
"Firstly, how does the KP determine when diamonds are conflict diamonds? In the current system and political context, any such decision would simply be vetoed," the statement asks.
"Secondly, what happens if the KP does identify conflict diamonds? The case of the Central African Republic has shown that embargoes, without strong accompanying measures, are counterproductive. They fuel smuggling and violence instead of stopping them.
"Finally, how does the KP deal with the many other challenges it already recognised in the 2021 Declaration on Responsible Diamond Sourcing? So far, this recognition has not translated into any change in how the KP operates.
The statement concludes: "The result is a KP that remains detached from reality at a time when challenges are overwhelming, and the scheme refuses to take responsibility. Its scope remains a needle in a haystack. Communities affected by diamond mining are left wondering how this scheme can possibly be relevant to the many problems they face."
According to a report from IDEX, the proposed revised definition was rejected by 32 countries.
More reading
‘Meaningful’ progress made in conflict diamond language debate
Diamond sanctions: Tensions mounting at Kimberley Process
Controversy surrounding Kimberley Process continues
Conflict diamonds: Definition debate continues
War of words: European Union, Kimberley Process trade blows
Conflict diamonds: Debate over definition rages on