The Kimberley Process (KP), the international body tasked with certifying rough diamonds, has once again ended its annual Plenary meeting without reaching a consensus on broadening the definition of conflict diamonds.
The failure, announced after the meeting in Dubai in November, extends a long-standing deadlock that has plagued the industry for nearly a decade.
Jaff Bamenjo, the outgoing coordinator of the Civil Society Coalition (CSC), which represents nonprofit groups at the KP, said that although the lack of a decision on expanding the conflict-diamond definition had not come as a surprise, it was nonetheless a disappointment for civil society.
The annual conference saw yet another attempt to revise the definition, which has faced mounting criticism for years because it only addresses violence by rebel groups, ignoring human rights abuses committed by state actors.
The Flawed Foundation: A Narrow 2003 Mandate
The need to expand the definition of a "conflict diamond" has been an ongoing issue for many years and first arose shortly after the Kimberley Process was created in 2003. The original, highly specific mandate defined conflict diamonds as:
"Rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments."
This narrow focus meant the KP was highly effective at cutting off funding to rebel insurgents during the early 2000s, but it was not long before it became outdated.
The Catalyst for Change
Widely regarded as the most critical wake-up call was Controversy surrounding mining at the Marange diamond fields in Zimbabwe in the late 2000s.
Severe human rights abuses, violence, and killings were reported. However, this was carried out by government security forces aiming to control the mining area, rather than rebel groups.
The KP's original definition could not classify stones mined under state-sponsored violence as "conflict diamonds," And this served to expose a major ethical loophole.
The discussion moved to the forefront with the launch of the KP Review and Reform Cycle in 2017-2018, with the expansion being the top priority for civil society and consumer nations.
Proposed Modernisation
In recent years, proposals, including one put forward by Canada and supported by the World Diamond Council (WDC), have sought to Significantly expand the scope of certification. The WDC's proposed definition sought to include stones:
· Used by public security forces or private (including criminal or mercenary) armed groups to acquire wealth through illegal control, bribery, taxation, extortion, or dispossession of people.
· Acquired through systemic and widespread violence, forced labor, the worst forms of child labor, or through violations of international humanitarian law.
WDC President Feriel Zerouki emphasized at the KP plenary in Dubai in November – where yet again a consensus could not be reached on broadening the definition of conflict diamonds – that doing so would help safeguard 1.5 million artisanal diamond miners. Such a decision would also allow the KP to act where communities are at risk, and she urged participants to support a modernized definition at the plenary opening.
The Structural Impasse: No Consensus – No Movement
The primary reason for the repeated failure to enact these changes lies in the core operating rule of the Kimberley Process: all member countries must unanimously approve a change for it to take effect.
This consensus rule effectively grants a single member country, or a small bloc of them, veto power over any change, regardless of how overwhelming the majority support might be.
“There was not one single group blocking progress,” Bamenjo noted, adding that vetoes came from various sides, leading to a fundamental impasse. The WDC reported that a “wide majority” supported expansion, but a “small number of KP participants blocked consensus on long-awaited reforms.”
The Geopolitical Divide
The deadlock is fundamentally rooted in a conflict between producing nations—primarily concerned with sovereignty and economic stability—and consuming nations and civil society—focused on ethical standards and human rights.
Diamond-producing nations, notably Russia and several African countries, consistently oppose expansion. They argue that including issues like widespread violence or environmental stewardship would constitute intervention in their internal affairs and violate national sovereignty. They fear the expanded definition would become an easy tool for consuming nations to impose trade restrictions or sanctions based on subjective concerns, threatening the profitability and stability of their exports.
Geopolitical Blockages
The political stalemate has intensified due to recent global conflicts. Attempts by Western nations to officially discuss and address the flow of diamonds from major producers like Russia following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine were swiftly blocked by Russia and its allies within the KP forum.
KP chair Ahmed Bin Sulayem pointed out that a handful of states effectively imported a geopolitical matter into a mechanism designed to prevent the very abuses they once helped define, thereby halting progress on reform.
Final Words...
Despite the latest setback, advocates for reform remain determined. WDC president Zerouki stated that while the opposing states halted progress today, "they cannot halt the direction of travel."
The focus now shifts to the 2026 Plenary, where the push for a relevant and ethical diamond definition is guaranteed to continue.
Abraham Dayan for Rough&Polished
