The Kimberley Process

The Kimberley Process (KP) has again failed to reach agreement on a new definition of conflict diamonds.

A proposal to broaden the term at the KP plenary in Dubai last week was rejected by Australia, Canada, the EU (representing 27 member countries), Switzerland, Ukraine and the UK, according to the African Diamond Producers Association (ADPA). That’s a total of 32 countries.

Updating the current definition – diamonds used by rebel groups to finance armed conflict against legitimate governments – would have required a unanimous vote. There have been repeated attempts to broaden the definition since it was first adopted in 2000.

The World Diamond Council (WDC) spoke of its “profound regret” that a small number of participants had blocked consensus on long-awaited reforms designed to strengthen protections for Africa’s diamond-mining communities.

In a statement issued at the end of the plenary it did not identify those who had vetoed the new definition. But ADPA did.

ADPA said: “Six participants – Australia, Canada, the European Union, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and one observer, Civil Society Coalition, refused to support the expanded definition.”

It said its proposed definition “aimed to provide a Pan-African solution to today’s evolving nature of diamond conflicts and the realities on the ground”.

The ADPA’s broader definition would have included “armed groups, non-state armed groups, UN Security Council-sanctioned individuals and entities and their allies, as well as to cover actions aimed at financing armed conflict and other operations, including attempts at undermining legitimate governments, and the well-being of diamond communities”.

It singled out the EU for harsh criticism, claiming it had in recent years “purposefully blurred and made several attempts to bypass the work of the KP.

The World Diamond Council (WDC) said progress had been killed in pursuit of the impossible.

“Today’s outcome is not a failure of the KP,” said WDC president Feriel Zerouki (pictured), as the five-day plenary concluded.

“Most participants stood firmly behind Africa. The setback came from a few, not from the Process itself. And while they halted progress today, they cannot halt the direction of travel.”

Jaff Bamenjo coordinator of the KP Civil Society Coalition, an observer group that represents communities affected by diamond mining and trade, said KP remains detached from reality at a time when challenges are overwhelming and the KP refuses to take responsibility.

“Its scope remains a needle in a haystack,” he said. “Communities affected by diamond mining are left wondering how this scheme can possibly be relevant to the many problems they face.”

Source: IDEX

The Kimberley Process: Control of the Diamond Pipeline, Not the Use of Revenue

When the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) was launched in 2003, it was marketed as a global solution to stop “conflict diamonds” from funding civil wars and human rights abuses. However, more than two decades later, the realities of the initiative paint a very different picture. The Kimberley Process has evolved not into a tool of humanitarian oversight, but into a mechanism that controls the flow of rough diamonds—who mines them, who sells them, who profits—and with little concern for how those profits are ultimately used.

A System Focused on Legitimising Trade, Not Regulating Impact

The entire structure of the Kimberley Process revolves around documentation and export control. Diamonds are certified to ensure that they originate from “legitimate” channels, which mostly means from governments and recognised mining concessions. Once that documentation exists, the diamonds are cleared for international trade.

What the system does not do is monitor or regulate what happens next.

Once revenue enters official state budgets or company accounts, the Kimberley Process has no authority, no mandate, and no interest in determining whether diamond income:

Improves living standards in mining communities
Funds infrastructure, healthcare, or education
Supports social development
Or, conversely, fuels corruption, political patronage, or state violence

In many diamond-producing nations, government control of the resource is absolute, while accountability for the use of diamond wealth remains minimal.

Legitimacy Through the Stamp, Not Through the Outcome

A diamond certified under the Kimberley Process is considered “clean” simply because it does not fund a rebel movement. Yet the humanitarian reality is far more complex. In several countries, diamond mining takes place alongside:

Widespread corruption
Poverty in mining regions
Environmental degradation
Labour exploitation
Lack of reinvestment into the communities that generate the wealth

The certification system provides political legitimacy to the diamond trade while ignoring the social conditions behind it. In other words, the Kimberley Process ensures diamonds are “legitimate to sell,” not that the proceeds are “responsibly used.”

Who Really Controls the Diamond Narrative?

From the beginning, the Kimberley Process was structured by governments and major industry stakeholders, including those with the most to gain from a controlled and regulated supply chain. Control over certification effectively means control over access to export markets—an immense economic advantage.

This has allowed:

States to assert exclusive ownership over the resource
Major mining companies to maintain their dominant global trading roles
Smaller or informal miners to be excluded from legal markets
The narrative of “ethical diamonds” to remain tightly managed

In this sense, the Kimberley Process serves more as a trade gatekeeper than a humanitarian framework. It decides who may sell diamonds, where they may be shipped, and under what conditions—while staying silent on whether diamond-rich nations or their citizens truly benefit from the wealth beneath their soil.

A System Out of Step with Modern Expectations

In 2025, consumer expectations have changed dramatically. Jewellery buyers increasingly want:

Transparency
Ethical assurance
Positive social and environmental impact
Evidence of fair value distribution

Yet the Kimberley Process remains rooted in a narrow 20-year-old definition of conflict that does not consider:

Government-sponsored abuse
Corruption
Human rights violations
Economic exploitation
Lack of benefit to local communities

For modern ethical standards, this is an outdated and insufficient framework.

Conclusion

The uncomfortable truth is this: the Kimberley Process is primarily a system for controlling the supply and movement of diamonds, not for ensuring that the immense wealth generated improves lives or supports sustainable development.

It decides who is allowed to trade diamonds, not how diamond money is used. Until the initiative expands beyond its limited mandate and confronts the broader social realities of the diamond industry, the Kimberley Process will remain a trade tool—not a humanitarian safeguard.

The Kimberley Process (KP) is an international certification scheme established to prevent the trade in “blood diamonds,” which are diamonds mined in war zones and sold to finance armed conflict against governments. The Kimberley Process aims to ensure that diamonds are sourced from legitimate, conflict-free origins, and is designed to trace a diamond’s journey from its rough state through to its finished form.

Background and History
The Kimberley Process was established in 2003, following years of efforts to address the issue of conflict diamonds. The trade in blood diamonds was particularly prevalent during the 1990s, when diamonds were being used as a source of funding for rebel groups in countries like Sierra Leone, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. These diamonds were sold to finance armed conflicts, often at the expense of innocent civilians who were subjected to violence, forced labor, and exploitation.

In response to growing international concern, governments, industry leaders, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) came together to create the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. The scheme aims to prevent diamonds that fund violence from entering the global market, by ensuring that all rough diamonds are certified as conflict-free before they can be traded.

How the Kimberley Process Works
The Kimberley Process works by requiring the certification of all rough diamonds being traded internationally. The certification process ensures that the diamond in question has been sourced from a country that is compliant with the Kimberley Process rules, which prohibit the trade of diamonds that finance conflict.

The key aspects of the Kimberley Process include:

Certification of Origin: Each shipment of rough diamonds must be accompanied by a Kimberley Process certificate that attests that the diamonds come from a conflict-free source. The certificate contains information about the diamond’s country of origin, as well as details about the trading parties involved in the transaction.

International Trade Regulation: The Kimberley Process applies to the international trade of rough diamonds. It requires that all rough diamonds be shipped in secure, tamper-resistant containers and that they are accompanied by the appropriate certificates at every stage of the trade process.

Export and Import Controls: Countries participating in the Kimberley Process are required to implement strict controls over the export and import of rough diamonds. Diamonds that do not have the appropriate Kimberley Process certificate are not allowed to enter international trade.

Monitoring and Compliance: To ensure that participating countries adhere to the Kimberley Process, there are monitoring mechanisms in place. Each participating country is required to report on its compliance with the Kimberley Process rules, and there are provisions for addressing non-compliance, including sanctions or trade restrictions.

Participating Countries and Stakeholders
The Kimberley Process is a voluntary initiative, with over 80 countries currently participating, including diamond-producing countries such as South Africa, Botswana, Russia, and Canada. Key stakeholders in the Kimberley Process include:

Governments: Each participating government is responsible for implementing the Kimberley Process within its own jurisdiction. This includes enacting legislation, establishing regulatory bodies, and ensuring compliance with the certification requirements.

Diamond Industry: Diamond producers, traders, and manufacturers play a critical role in the Kimberley Process. Companies must ensure that the diamonds they trade are conflict-free and that they comply with the certification system. Many diamond industry leaders and organisations, including the World Diamond Council, support the Kimberley Process and encourage ethical business practices within the industry.

Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs): NGOs, such as Global Witness, have been instrumental in raising awareness about the issue of conflict diamonds and advocating for strong measures to address the problem. NGOs continue to monitor the Kimberley Process and push for improvements in its effectiveness.

The United Nations: The United Nations (UN) has been involved in supporting the Kimberley Process, particularly in the context of enforcing trade restrictions and sanctions against countries or regions that fail to comply with the certification scheme.

The Impact of the Kimberley Process
The Kimberley Process has had a significant impact on the global diamond trade. By providing a certification system that ensures diamonds are sourced from conflict-free areas, the initiative has helped reduce the flow of blood diamonds into international markets. Some of the key outcomes of the Kimberley Process include:

Reduction in Conflict Diamonds: The Kimberley Process has significantly decreased the number of conflict diamonds entering the market. The system has made it more difficult for diamonds mined in war zones to be traded internationally, thereby cutting off an important source of funding for rebel groups involved in armed conflicts.

Increased Accountability in the Diamond Trade: The certification requirements of the Kimberley Process have improved transparency and accountability in the diamond trade. By tracking the origin of diamonds, the system helps ensure that diamonds are ethically sourced and do not contribute to violence or human rights abuses.

Support for Ethical Practices in the Industry: The Kimberley Process has encouraged the diamond industry to adopt more responsible and sustainable practices. Many companies in the industry now prioritise sourcing diamonds from conflict-free areas and are increasingly committed to maintaining ethical supply chains.

Criticism and Challenges
While the Kimberley Process has achieved significant success, it is not without its critics and challenges. Some of the issues raised include:

Loopholes and Weak Enforcement: Despite its successes, the Kimberley Process has faced criticism for its enforcement mechanisms. There have been concerns about the presence of loopholes that allow diamonds from conflict zones to still enter the market, particularly through illegal or unregulated trade routes.

Limited Scope: The Kimberley Process only covers rough diamonds and does not extend to polished diamonds or diamonds that have been integrated into finished jewellery. This leaves some potential gaps in the supply chain where conflict diamonds could still enter the market.

Conflict Beyond Diamonds: The Kimberley Process only addresses the issue of conflict diamonds, but does not tackle the broader issues of human rights abuses, environmental harm, or unethical practices that can be associated with the diamond trade.

Lack of Effective Monitoring: Some critics argue that the monitoring and verification processes within the Kimberley Process are insufficient and that there is a lack of consistent oversight to ensure full compliance.

The Future of the Kimberley Process
While the Kimberley Process has made important strides in addressing the issue of conflict diamonds, there is ongoing debate about how to improve and strengthen the system. Several key areas for reform include:

Expanding the Scope of Certification: There are calls for expanding the Kimberley Process to include polished diamonds and finished jewellery, as well as addressing other forms of exploitation and unethical practices in the diamond industry.

Improved Monitoring and Enforcement: Strengthening monitoring mechanisms and ensuring better enforcement of the certification rules is crucial to preventing diamonds from conflict zones from entering the market.

Increased Transparency: Increased transparency in the diamond supply chain, including the use of technology to track diamonds from mine to market, can help to further combat the issue of conflict diamonds.

The Kimberley Process remains an important tool in the global effort to ensure that diamonds are sourced ethically and do not contribute to conflict. As the industry evolves, so too will the Kimberley Process, with ongoing efforts to improve its effectiveness and expand its impact on the diamond trade.

Tag: The Kimberley Process

Conflict Diamonds: Nations that Vetoed New Definition