Industry calls for urgent reform to eliminate trade in conflict diamonds

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The diamond industry has called for urgent reform of an international pact aimed at eliminating trade in conflict stones, which has been criticised by activists as ineffectual.

The World Diamond Council wants a change to the Kimberley Process — a certification scheme that came into effect in 2003 to eliminate so-called blood diamonds — to broaden the definition of “conflict” diamonds.

“The rules of yesteryear that were created 20 years ago, really need to be reformed,” Feriel Zerouki, president of the council, which represents the industry in the Kimberley Process, told the Financial Times. “The process is not perfect and needs to evolve.”

Participants in the Kimberley Process represent 86 nations, and will convene next week in Dubai. The main issue will be whether governments can overcome deep divisions and agree to update the definition of “conflict”.

The pact was agreed due to international alarm that rebels in Sierra Leone were using proceeds from the diamond trade to fund themselves during the country’s civil war between 1991 and 2002. The issue received more global attention with the 2006 movie Blood Diamond, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Djimon Hounsou.

However, critics say the pact has been undermined by a narrow definition of conflict diamonds as just being those sold by “rebel movements or their allies to finance armed conflicts aimed at undermining legitimate governments”. The body has spent 13 years trying to update the definition.

At present there are no diamond-producing countries or regions that are deemed to be in “conflict”, including Russia, despite its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Zerouki said it was essential for the definition of “conflict” to be updated now, rather than wait for the next opportunity to do so, which will not come again until 2031 under existing Kimberley Process rules.

“The KP has an opportunity here to act,” she said. One proposal for a new definition of “conflict” would be to include armed groups and UN-sanctioned entities and individuals, as well as expanding protections for diamond-producing communities, she said.

A group of non-profit organisations said in a letter on Friday that the Kimberley Process was enabling “greenwashing” because of its lack of transparency, while others have said it was toothless.

“The KP’s apparent simplicity makes it politically attractive as a ‘quick fix’, but its track record shows it enables greenwashing: it creates an illusion of progress while dodging the hard work of tackling complex problems,” the letter said.

Hans Merket, researcher at the International Peace Information Service, an observer party to the Kimberley Process and one of the signatories to the letter, said: “The Kimberley Process is beyond repair. Its scope is so narrow, it is not just about the definition, but about its approach to these challenges.”

Western nations have also grown frustrated by an inability to label Russian stones as “conflict diamonds”, with the UK last year saying the country had “abused” the consensus-based process to block discussion of its war in Ukraine.

The G7 countries have implemented a ban on rough diamonds from Russia, and the EU has put sanctions on Alrosa, the country’s biggest producer that is partly state-owned. But analysts say Russian diamonds still enter the supply chain, particularly through polishing centres in third countries.