Kimberley Process reaches its sink or swim moment

Mbongeni Mguni | Wednesday November 26, 2025 08:17

Forget, for a moment, the argument that natural diamonds are dead. Botswana exported P28.5 billion worth of the stones in the first seven months of this year, compared to about P25 billion over the same period last year.

Now, that’s due to a number of interlinked and causal factors, but the numbers are the numbers.

Rather, the argument that should be had and is being had, is not taking place in Botswana, but rather in Dubai where representatives from the 86 member states and groups of the Kimberley Process are meeting in their annual plenary.

“The world has changed. The risks have changed. The expectations of consumers have changed. And the idea that we must stay silent to preserve consensus belongs to another era,” said World Diamond Council president, Feriel Zerouki in Dubai.

Her remarks are the strongest yet from the WDC, the largest representative organisation of the diamond industry.

Zerouki’s comments on the preservation of consensus strike to the heart of the crisis within the KP, as the Kimberley Process is informally known.

The KP, a United Nations’ backed supranational group that has fought conflict diamonds for more than two decades, is stuck in a consensus paralysis that has led observers to question its relevance in keeping the global diamond industry clean.

Since its establishment in 2000, the KP has maintained the original definition of conflict diamonds as being those used to finance rebel movements against legitimate governments. That definition, originally targetted at rebel movements in countries such as Sierra Leone, has aged badly over the years, as actors such as Russia have used diamond revenues to conduct wars.

Some countries in the KP believe even Israel should be sanctioned for using revenue from its diamond trading to support its campaign in Gaza, while other instances of diamonds being used in human rights abuses by governments in some countries, have also been cited.

The major stumbling block for those pushing for reforms, particularly around the definition, is the Kimberley Process’ requirement that all decisions secure absolute consensus, a founding tenet of the organisation that means a veto by any member effectively kills decisions.

The KP meets twice a year, once in an intersessional in June and again at the year-end plenary in November where hard and fast decisions are taken. Under its founding rules, the KP operates on a three-year review or reform cycle.

However, as critics have noted, no meaningful reform has taken place over the years due to the consensus rule, one that Russia and her allies have used to block discussions on the definition in all the years since the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Relaxing or amending the consensus rule and addressing the definition of conflict diamonds have topped the reform agenda in recent years, but in a cruel irony, amending the consensus rule requires consensus!

This time, as the KP members meet in Dubai, they have the additional existential threat of synthetics hanging over the heads, leaving no room for kicking the can further down the road.

An updated definition would demonstrate to the world, and the ethical buyers who now comprise the bulk of diamond jewellery customers, that the industry cares about the good the stones do and stands ready to act. A new definition would win back invaluable goodwill from the increasingly cynical Gen Zs, many of whom have shifted to synthetics and other gemstones, as the industry has struggled to coalesce around what conflict diamonds are and are not.

An updated consensus rule and definition would demonstrate that the industry is agile, adaptive and ready to support the various industry-level traceability initiatives as well as the massive marketing campaign due to be launched under the Luanda Accord.

In her remarks, Zerouki alluded to the hard work that has gone into the KP’s review cycle in the past three years.

“Three years of work, research, negotiation, long nights and honest conversations - all driven by one purpose: to make this system stronger and fairer for those it was built to protect. “Today, we stand together at a crossroads. “Will participants choose to move the Kimberley Process forward, or will some choose to hold it back? “We must be honest about what that choice really means.”

She warned against any members using their veto power, asking delegates to take a stand in history.

“Let me speak clearly. “Anyone who chooses to veto at this final stage is making three strong statements: “The first is that they believe conflict can only exist when it threatens a legitimate government and is fought by rebels. We all know that is untrue. “The second is that they are turning their backs on diamond communities - many of whom are vulnerable to exploitation and need a mandate that includes them in its protection.”

She continued: “The third is more difficult to state, but it must be said. They simply want the Kimberley Process to stall. “They knowingly set impossible requirements - under the guise of doing the right thing - ensuring that expansion is set up to fail. “They make demands that go far - beyond the authority of the Kimberley Process, demands that no United Nations instrument uses, and that no peace treaty in the world has ever used. “Such actions do not defend progress. They are obstacles to it.”

In her remarks and the WDC’s posture, Zerouki found support from the Kimberley Process Civil Society Coalition (KP CSC), a community-facing lobby group that has for years been amongst the strongest advocates for reform in the organisation.

KP CSC coordinator, Jaff Bamenjo, said the KP’s ultimate purpose is to protect communities from diamond-fuelled violence and conflict, not to give consumers peace of mind, safeguard corporate interests, or shield governments from legitimate concerns that they themselves may be the link between diamonds and conflict.

He said within the KP, it was evident that some members were more interested in wordplay than resolving the crisis facing the organisation.

“The definition we need is simple; let me spell it out clearly: conflict diamonds are diamonds used to finance widespread or systematic violence. Nothing more, nothing less. “All the rest - all the complex wording being proposed - has nothing to do with promoting peace and development, but is only about protecting narrow interests, entrenching greed, and ignoring legitimate grievances.”

According to Bamenjo, the proposals for an updated definition of conflict diamonds proposed thus far still fail to address ongoing violence and conflicts fuelled by the diamond trade. He said time and again, discussions get stuck in language that seeks to avoid rather than achieve meaningful change - language that prioritises government interests over the protection of communities.

“This is both sad and shameful,” he said.

The Dubai plenary is scheduled to end on November 21, but it remains to be seen whether the KP can emerge a stronger, more relevant organisation or whether it was retreat to the wastelands of noble intentions.