The Kimberley Process is flawed, possibly fatally. Those who are determined to keep the diamond industry clean are seeking ways to repair it – or replace it

The campaign to halt conflict diamonds got off to a remarkably fast start in the early 2000s after 75 governments signed the first regulatory system tracking the sale of rough diamonds. Voluntary, and premised on a certification-of-origin system backed by the force of law in each country, the Kimberley Process is, however, now in some trouble.

Its fundamental failure, observers say, is an ambiguous tripartite structure that has sown discord among member states, NGOs and industry participants.

Action can only be taken against non-compliant countries if there is 100% consensus among member governments. Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola could each block their own suspensions – this despite overwhelming evidence in each of these countries of either serious human rights violations or weak internal controls certifying diamonds’ origins.

Secondly, the Kimberley Process is essentially an empty construct, given that there is not a headquarters or professional staff. It lacks independent third party monitoring – the backbone enforcement tool of any regulatory body.

“The KP has shown in more than half a dozen cases of serious noncompliance, crime and violence, that it is incapable of remedial action,” says Ian Smillie, a Canadian who led the campaign against the illegal diamond trade. He helped create the Kimberley Process but then walked away in 2009 over the body’s refusal to deal with clear human rights violations committed by Zimbabwean military forces at the Marange mine.

Smillie says the process needs “independent third party monitoring, effective and credible sanctions for noncompliance, and a decision-making process that isn’t held hostage to political and commercial vested interests”.

In June, Kimberley Process chairman Mathieu Yamba’s decision to declare Zimbabwe’s controversial diamonds as suitable for sale without a consensus almost ripped the organisation apart.

Because South Africa has made clear that it stands by Zimbabwe and will allow imports of Marange diamonds, civic organisations worry that Marange stones exported to South Africa could be mixed with other gems and receive Kimberley certification.

Things fall apart?

“There is a risk that ethical retailers will cut African diamonds out of the supply chain completely,” says Nadim Kara, campaign director of natural resources at Partnership Africa Canada (PAC), an organisation specialising in sustainable development in Africa.

The Indian diamond industry, likely to be Zimbabwe’s biggest customer by far, is urging India’s political leadership to follow South Africa’s lead, a decision that could plunge the Kimberley Process into an unparalleled crisis.

“Obviously, if there is a prolonged situation in which questionable merchandise is being imported into certain countries, the integrity of the system is threatened,” says Eli Izhakoff, president of the World Diamond Council, a leading industry group formed in 2000 to help manage the Kimberley Process alongside Global Witness and PAC.

To resolve the current impasse, some are talking of creating a new parallel structure of like-minded governments – what has been variously dubbed a “KP-plus” or “KP 2.0” – that would have tougher rules and would brand itself and its diamonds accordingly.

“By creating a commercial incentive, a few key governments could create a magnet that other governments would be drawn to,” says Smillie. It is an idea that originated in and was quickly withdrawn by the US state department but has long been talked about in various circles.

“NGOs, having walked out of the June KP meeting in Kinshasa, are licking their wounds,” says Smillie. “They are trying to develop a coherent approach to an incoherent mess.” 

 

 



Related Reads

comments powered by Disqus