Diamonds and Human Security
The Kimberley Process
The 'Kimberley Process (KP)' was initiated in May 2000, in the town of Kimberley, where South African diamonds were first discovered in the 1860s. Concerned about how diamond-fuelled wars in Angola, Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo might affect the legitimate trade in other producing countries, the government of South Africa called for a meeting between diamond producing and trading country governments, industry and NGOs and an effort to grapple with the problem of conflict diamonds, a problem that NGOs and the United Nations had brought to public attention over the previous 18 months. It then took three years of meetings on regular basis to develop an international certification system for rough diamonds - The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS).
The KPCS: The basic agreement
The KPCS for rough diamonds came into effect on January 1, 2003. Over 48 countries, plus all those represented by the European Community, participate. Under the terms of the KPCS, each participating government agrees to issue a certificate to accompany any rough diamonds being exported from its territory, certifying that the diamonds are conflict-free. Each country must therefore be able to track the diamonds being offered for export back to the place where they were mined, or to the point of import, and it must meet a set of standards for these internal controls. All importing countries agree not to allow any rough diamonds into their territory without an approved KPCS certificate. Given the large volume of diamonds being traded across borders, it was deemed necessary to produce trade and production statistics which can be compared and analyzed in order to ensure that the diamonds leaving one country match those entering another, by volume and by value.
Signs of Stress
By mid 2006, however, the KPCS was showing signs of stress. The peer review system was highly dependent upon the regular participation of a few countries. The two NGO KP members, Partnership Africa Canada and Global Witness, bore the disproportionate expense of financing a civil society team member on each review until 2007, when a Civil Society Fund was created to help alleviate this responsibility. Nonetheless, the financial limitation of the fund is an important constraint. Not all reviews were of the same calibre, and the final reports on some of the most important were delayed for months. The Statistics Working Group was likewise strained by its dependence on voluntary work from group members, and by lengthy delays in data production. The voluntary chairing of each working group suggests a concept of rotation, but the amount of work involved and the cost associated with the chairing of the three most important working groups had resulted in stasis, with no change in three years, and none on the horizon. Worse, when confronted with overt examples of obvious and serious non-compliance in Brazil, Guyana, Ghana, Venezuela and elsewhere, the Kimberley Process seemed to have become paralyzed.
Outstanding KP issues
In a speech on the opening day of the November 2006 KP Plenary in Botswana, PAC Research Coordinator, Ian Smillie, said, "we meet at a moment of great importance for the Kimberley Process, the diamond industry, and the people whose lives depend not just on a prosperous diamond industry, but one that cannot be used to threaten peace….we have seen more and more examples of how criminals and diamond dealers and smugglers and even governments have been able to bypass, subvert and ignore the KPCS with almost complete impunity." PAC was not alone in its criticism and concerns. Smillie's comments were endorsed by World Diamond Council Chairman Eli Izhakoff, who agreed that "a cross roads in the evolution of the Kimberley Process" had been reached. "If we are to build on its success, we must redouble our efforts, here in Gaborone, to ensure that we have a system that will not yield under the scrutiny of a public that rightly demands not just our best efforts but progress and success." Izhakoff added that "for the international diamond industry and all its dependents around the world, failure is not an option." Even though some progress has been made - such as agreement on the elaboration of interim measures at the 2008 Delhi Plenary - most of the outstanding issues o non-compliance have yet to be dealt with. There is the ongoing case of Venezuela, and the example of flagrant abuse of human rights by the authorities in Zimbabwe to control diamond mining areas such as in Marange. There is little or no follow-up on recommendations made by review visit teams, and there is poor implementation or lack of internal controls by many KP participants and as proven by an illicit diamonds trade representing as much as 20 per cent of the annual world production. This level of illegality and inaction by the KP creates the opportunity and the space for conflict diamonds, and regardless of how current conflicts unfold, the trade in conflict diamonds will continue to present a threat to peace and stability in Africa unless it is halted.
