Editor’s Note
This article examines the persistent shortcomings of the Kimberley Process, established two decades ago to halt the trade in conflict diamonds. While the certification scheme was a landmark initiative, evidence shows the diamond trade continues to be linked to severe human rights abuses, raising urgent questions about the need for stronger safeguards and accountability.
Nearly twenty years ago, governments came together to end the trade in “blood diamonds” that fueled several brutal wars in Africa. They established the Kimberley Process, a system for controlling the export and import of rough diamonds. But it is now more evident than ever that this is not enough: the diamond trade continues to cause serious human rights violations.
Take, for example, what is currently happening in the Marange diamond fields in eastern Zimbabwe. Residents have been victims of forced labor, torture, and other violence. Just two weeks ago, they protested against the alleged looting of diamond revenues, and events turned violent. Residents claim that security forces beat women with batons, fired live ammunition into the air, and threw tear gas grenades—resulting in the hospitalization of three children.
Many residents of Marange feel harassed by authorities who have declared their village a “protected area” where any visit by a non-resident requires special permission, and who have apprehended several people without identification proving their residence. Furthermore, private security agents employed by the Marange diamond mining company, Zimbabwe Consolidated Diamond Company, have used brutal violence to deter local residents from extracting diamonds, according to several victims. One miner described his arrest:
The sad reality is that diamonds tainted by abuse, from Marange or elsewhere, can still easily reach the global market. Both governments and companies in the diamond supply chain bear responsibility for this situation.
The Kimberley Process focuses only on diamonds whose sale benefits armed groups—not abusive governments. So it is not surprising that it has authorized exports of Zimbabwean diamonds. Furthermore, the governments involved have failed to create an independent monitoring system capable of verifying whether the necessary customs controls are in place. Finally, the Kimberley Process applies only to rough diamonds, which excludes fully or partially cut or polished stones from its scope.
Companies also have a responsibility not to contribute to human rights violations. They must implement the necessary due diligence measures to identify such risks throughout their supply chain and respond appropriately.
Many companies are not actually compliant with this requirement. Human Rights Watch recently examined the diamond sourcing practices of 13 renowned jewelry and watch companies. This investigation showed that many companies did not know the origin of their gold or diamonds and were deficient in assessing human rights risks. Moreover, jewelers and watch companies often publish limited information about how they manage these risks in their supply chains.
The Kimberley Process should adopt a broader definition of “conflict diamonds” (to address abuses such as those occurring in Marange), establish an independent monitoring system, and ensure rigorous controls. Jewelry companies, diamond dealers, cutters, and polishers must also implement human rights due diligence and require it from their suppliers.
The abuses committed in Marange severely tarnish the image of the global diamond industry. For customers, precious stones symbolize love, not violence. Jewelry companies must therefore act to end the suffering.
