The Kimberley Process wrapped up a three-year reform cycle unable to reach an agreement on expanding the definition of what constitutes a “conflict” diamond, an issue it has been debating for nearly a decade.
The current definition of a conflict diamond is: rough diamonds used by rebel movements, or the allies of rebels, to finance conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments.
Those pushing for reform want to expand it to include language that addresses human rights abuses more generally—sexual violence, torture and abuses committed by groups other than rebels, such as private and public security forces.
The official statement from the meeting, held in December in New Delhi, India, noted the Plenary “welcomes the in-depth discussions that took place on how best to capture the evolving nature of conflict and actors involved in conflict,” but “no consensus could be found on an updated conflict diamond definition.”
The KP operates on a complete-consensus model, meaning all 55 participants (representing 82 countries) have to agree to any resolution in order for it to pass.
The failure of the KP to expand the definition of conflict again ignited debate about the future and relevancy of a process that has failed to evolve even as consumer demand for transparency, and the technology around traceability, has advanced.
In a statement posted on KPCivilSociety.org, Shamiso Mtisi, the Zimbabwe-based coordinator of the KP’s Civil Society Coalition, the group of non-governmental organizations that are non-voting members of the KP, called the meeting a “sad and surreal spectacle” in which participants could not agree on anything substantial.
In addition to the definition of conflict, other reform issues were “kicked into the long grass,” Mtisi said, including the creation of a permanent secretariat and a multi-donor fund.
“While KP participants were busy rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, African communities supported by the members of our civil society coalition continue to suffer the downside of diamond riches,” the statement reads.
“This involves harms to their livelihoods, environmental damage and … often still violence and abuse. This plenary failed to give these communities any reassurances that the Kimberley Process actually cares. In the same way, states failed to provide any answers to the insistent marketing of synthetic diamonds as ethically superior alternatives to natural diamond purchases.”
The Civil Society Coalition’s statement concluded that the KP lost more relevance and credibility at the recent plenary and that it will look outside the “rigid process” to improve diamond governance.
World Diamond Council President Stephane Fischler pushed back against the idea that debating the same issue for nearly a decade with no action has rendered the KP irrelevant.
The WDC, like the Civil Society Coalition, has observer status in the KP, meaning it is there as a non-voting member representing a specific sector. In the WDC’s case, it represents the diamond industry.
Fischler said not so long ago, the idea of adding human rights language to the definition of what constitutes a conflict diamond was not even up for debate. African countries that would not come to the table on the issue have now realized the importance of a strong KP.
“More than ever, we managed to have this debate and that’s really, really important,” he said. “I certainly felt that finally, they get it. And it’s encouraging.”
