Blog , ,

The Dysfunction of the Kimberley Process: How an International Certification Scheme Became a Shield for Interests and Privileges

Post By editor March 17, 2026

Eyecatch image for the title

Why Has the Effort to Revise the Definition Failed Four Years in a Row?

The Kimberley Process (KP), established in 2003 to prevent conflict diamonds from entering the global market, has once again failed to agree on expanding the definition of “conflict diamonds.” At the 2025 Plenary in Dubai, participants were unable—for the fourth consecutive year—to reach consensus on this core reform issue.

This persistent deadlock is not merely the result of geopolitical tensions. It reflects a deeper structural reality: participating states continue to prioritize their own economic interests and sovereign privileges, pushing the system toward dysfunction.

This article examines the political struggle surrounding the definition, explores why the KP has drifted so far from today’s realities, and explains why Diamonds for Peace (DFP) continues to pursue a community‑based, on‑the‑ground approach to combating conflict diamonds     .

  1. What the Dispute Over the Definition Reveals

The KP’s current definition—“rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments”—was created more than 20 years ago and remains extremely narrow.

Under this definition, diamonds linked to state violence—such as abuses by security forces, violence against artisanal miners, or even diamonds associated with a state’s war of aggression—are not considered conflict diamonds.

Civil society and several participating countries have long advocated for a modernized definition that includes “diamonds associated with widespread and systematic violence, regardless of the perpetrator.” Such an update would finally allow the KP to address serious human rights abuses, regardless of who commits them.

But that is precisely why many governments resist it.

  1. Ethics vs. Sovereignty—and the Logic of State Immunity

Western countries calling for an expanded definition have done so with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in mind, arguing that state-linked violence must fall within the KP’s scope. They emphasize that meeting consumers’ ethical expectations is essential for maintaining industry credibility and supporting sustainable development in diamond producing countries.

Russia—the world’s largest diamond producer—has strongly opposed the proposed definition changes, describing them as “political and ideological interference” and an infringement on state sovereignty. Diamond revenues are a pillar of Russia’s national budget, and the profits of the state-owned company ALROSA are directly tied to state interests.

However, Russia is not the only actor blocking progress. The Kimberley Process Civil Society Coalition (KP CSC) reported that “vetoes were exercised from all sides,” suggesting that many countries were reluctant to include state-linked violence within the KP’s mandate.

Behind this reluctance lies a shared concern: expanding the definition could expose their own security forces or government agencies to international scrutiny, with potential political and economic consequences.

  1. How Economic Interests Block Structural Reform

Belgium’s shifting position illustrates this dynamic. Initially cautious about sanctions on Russian diamonds, Belgium feared that Antwerp would lose market share to Dubai and other hubs. Its later support for sanctions was influenced by the expectation that adopting its own traceability technologies could help restore Antwerp’s competitive advantage.

This example highlights a broader pattern: ethical debates within the KP are consistently shaped—and often constrained—by economic interests. Many states resist rules that would require them to take responsibility for violence linked to their own institutions.

The KP CSC has criticized this dynamic, noting that while governments claim to “protect mining communities,” they often use those communities’ suffering to defend their own privileges.

  1. A System Detached from Reality—and Communities Left Behind

The KP was originally designed to drive improvement. Today, however, it functions as a shield that allows states and industry actors to avoid accountability and resist meaningful change.

A particularly harmful example is the repeated claim that “99% of the world’s diamonds are conflict-free.”
This figure ignores contemporary realities such as state violence, corruption, environmental destruction, and child labor. It creates a false sense of reassurance for consumers while obscuring the lived experiences of mining communities.

  1. Beyond the Limits of the System: Toward Effective Action

With the state-driven model reaching its limits, waiting for the KP to update its definition is no longer sufficient.

We must accelerate practical, system-independent approaches, including:

  • robust corporate due diligence
  • transparent and reliable traceability technologies
  • support for miners’ autonomy and livelihoods

These measures can improve conditions on the ground more quickly and reliably than any stalled institutional reform.

  1. DFP’s Position: Advancing Change from the Ground Up

Diamonds for Peace (DFP) envisions a world in which diamonds are mined, cut and processed with humanitarian and environmental considerations. Our work does not depend on the direction—or stagnation—of international institutions.

Through direct support to miners and engagement with companies, we will continue to advance practical, effective initiatives that create real change.

References