Kimberley Process Certification Scheme

Kimberley Process Certification Scheme
Name	Kimberley Process Certification Scheme
Formation	2003
Type	Intergovernmental certification scheme
Headquarters	Gaborone, Botswana (rotating chairmanships)
Region served	Global
Membership	States, industry, civil society

Kimberley Process Certification Scheme is an international certification scheme created to prevent the trade in conflict diamonds while facilitating legitimate rough diamond commerce. It arose from negotiations involving African states, United Nations, European Union, and representatives of the diamond industry such as the World Diamond Council, alongside civil society groups including Global Witness and Partnership Africa Canada. The scheme links trade documentation, government controls, and multilateral monitoring to curb revenues for armed groups in regions like Sierra Leone, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

History and establishment

The scheme traces back to civil society campaigning after the Sierra Leone Civil War and reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documenting how rebel movements such as the Revolutionary United Front financed violence with diamond sales. In 2000, meetings convened by South Africa, Belgium, and Zambia led to the 2002 regional dialogues culminating in a 2003 regime agreed at a plenary attended by delegations from United States, Russia, India, China, and members of the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States. The resulting arrangement was endorsed in successive resolutions at the United Nations Security Council and implemented by member states through domestic measures aligned with the World Trade Organization rules and multilateral customs practices.

Structure and governance

Governance rests on a tripartite composition of representatives from participating states, the diamond industry, and civil society organizations such as Global Witness and Ban Ki-moon-era United Nations envoys who engaged on conflict resources. Oversight has been exercised through rotating chairmanships held by states including Botswana, India, Belgium, and Russia; meetings occur at plenary sessions and within working groups modelled on practices seen in International Criminal Court-style diplomacy and World Bank consultative panels. Decision-making depends on consensus among participants and implementation by national authorities such as customs administrations in Belgium, licensing agencies in India, and regulatory bodies in South Africa. Compliance assessments draw on inspection methods akin to those used by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change review teams and audit practices of the International Organization for Standardization.

Certification procedures and requirements

The scheme requires participating rough diamond exporters to issue uniquely numbered certificates paralleling documentation systems used by International Air Transport Association and Universal Postal Union standards, and importers must verify certificates upon receipt. National authorities such as customs services in Belgium and export ministries in Botswana implement internal controls, chain-of-custody procedures informed by World Diamond Council guidance, and record-keeping compatible with Financial Action Task Force-style due diligence. Procedures include designation of import/export points, licensing of dealers similar to regulatory regimes in Hong Kong and Dubai, and periodic statistical reconciliation analogous to customs reporting to the World Customs Organization. Peer review visits, reporting schedules, and audit trails are required to detect discrepancies like illicit consignments that mirror investigative approaches used by Interpol and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Impact on diamond trade and conflict prevention

The scheme influenced rough diamond flows through market interventions by brokers in Antwerp and cutting centers in Gaborone and Surat, reducing the share of unverified stones in global trade routed through hubs such as Dubai and Mumbai. It contributed to regulatory changes in post-conflict states including Sierra Leone and Liberia, and was cited in United Nations sanctions and peacebuilding strategies for regions like Côte d'Ivoire and eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Industry players such as De Beers and the World Diamond Council adopted compliance codes echoing scheme requirements, while international donors including European Commission programs supported capacity building for customs and licensing authorities. The scheme also shaped consumer-facing initiatives like traceability programs and corporate social responsibility campaigns similar to those promoted by Fairtrade International.

Criticisms and controversies

Critics including Global Witness and Human Rights Watch have argued that consensus-based governance and narrow definitions limit effectiveness, citing instances where diamonds from conflict-affected mining areas in Central African Republic and eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo entered legitimate supply chains. Allegations of regulatory capture have involved industry actors such as De Beers and trade hubs like Antwerp being insufficiently restrained, while some states accused of violations, including Russia and Botswana, contested monitoring findings. Civil society withdrawals, most notably by Global Witness in 2011 and occasional suspension of participation by NGOs, highlighted disputes over transparency and independent investigative powers compared with mechanisms found in International Monetary Fund conditionality or World Bank safeguards. Questions also arose about the scheme’s ability to address illicit finance linked to diamonds in the context of Moneyval and Financial Action Task Force frameworks.

Reforms and alternatives

Calls for reform have proposed strengthening independent monitoring akin to Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reporting, widening the definition of conflict resources to include nexus cases similar to Colombian illegal resource financing, and integrating blockchain-style track-and-trace pilots used by private firms and initiatives in Israel and Switzerland. Alternatives advocated by academics and NGOs include multi-stakeholder certification models inspired by Forest Stewardship Council and Marine Stewardship Council, tighter customs coordination via World Customs Organization protocols, and mainstreaming human rights due diligence under frameworks like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Reforms debated at plenaries have involved proposals from states such as India, civil society groups like Global Witness, and industry bodies including the World Diamond Council to enhance transparency, peer review rigor, and sanctions for non-compliance.

Category:Diamonds