Zimbabwe Pushes for Higher Diamond Output Despite Global Market Pressures

 

Zimbabwe is aiming to increase diamond production to 5 million carats in 2026 through its state owned miner, the Zimbabwe Consolidated Diamond Company, despite mounting challenges across the global diamond sector.

The ambitious production target comes at a time when the international diamond market continues to face severe pressure from geopolitical instability, weakening consumer demand, the rapid rise of synthetic diamonds, and declining rough diamond prices. While most producers have experienced price declines of between 26% and 35%, Zimbabwe’s lower quality rough production has been hit far harder, with prices collapsing from highs of US$79 per carat to as low as US$22 per carat.

According to ZCDC chief executive Douglas Zimbango, Zimbabwean goods have suffered disproportionately due to a combination of product profile limitations, geopolitical tensions, synthetic diamond competition, market collusion, and what he described as an unsatisfactory sales framework.

“The international diamond market remains in a downturn,” Zimbango told lawmakers in Mutare, adding that Zimbabwe’s rough production now typically trades within a price range of US$22 to US$34 per carat. This compares unfavourably with higher quality producers achieving average rough prices closer to US$100 per carat.

Official figures show Zimbabwe sold 784,764 carats during the first quarter of 2026, representing an 11% decline in volume compared with the same period last year. Revenue performance weakened even further, with total sales value falling approximately 29% to US$21.6 million.

Despite the deteriorating pricing environment, Zimbabwe continues to pursue higher production volumes as part of a broader national economic strategy. Since commencing operations in 2016, ZCDC has extracted more than 26.5 million carats.

The country’s sovereign wealth vehicle, Mutapa Investment Fund, which owns ZCDC, has recently undertaken a restructuring of its mining interests in an effort to improve operational efficiency. This includes the creation of five new entities and the reorganisation of Kuvimba Mining House.

The Diamond Price Paradox

Zimbabwe’s current position highlights a growing structural problem within the global natural diamond industry. Unlike previous downturns driven largely by cyclical demand weakness, the present market correction reflects a far deeper transformation in the sector.

The rapid expansion of laboratory grown diamonds, combined with shifting consumer attitudes and global economic uncertainty, is forcing the industry to reassess the long term value proposition of natural diamonds. Producers operating within lower quality rough categories are facing the greatest pressure, as increased production volumes no longer guarantee higher revenues.

Zimbabwe remains one of the world’s largest diamond producing nations, accounting for approximately 3% of global supply and ranking seventh globally by production capacity. However, the widening gap between output growth and declining per carat values exposes the increasingly difficult economics confronting many diamond producing regions.

While Zimbabwe’s operational capacity continues to expand, the industry now faces a critical challenge: producing more diamonds in a market where the value of rough supply continues to deteriorate.

Source: DCLA

6.03 Carat Internally Flawless Blue Diamond Unsold at Major Geneva Auction

 

A rare 6.03 carat fancy vivid blue internally flawless diamond failed to secure a buyer at the recent Sotheby’s Geneva High Jewelry Sale, despite carrying a pre sale estimate between USD $9 million and $12 million. The exceptional blue diamond was the headline lot of the May 12 auction held at the Mandarin Oriental in Geneva.

Although the blue diamond remained unsold, the auction itself was considered a strong success, achieving more than USD $30 million in total sales with 93% of lots sold. Sotheby’s reported its highest participation levels in a Geneva jewellery sale in more than five years, with an average of more than five bidders competing for each sold lot.

Collectors from over 30 countries participated in the auction, with strong interest from buyers across the United States, Asia, Europe and the United Kingdom. Fancy coloured diamonds, important gemstones and signed vintage jewellery continued to dominate buyer demand.

According to Jessica Wyndham, Head of High Jewelry at Sotheby’s Geneva, collector appetite for coloured gemstones remains exceptionally strong, while white diamonds are also experiencing renewed demand. Signed jewellery from iconic maisons, particularly bold 1970s and 1980s designs from Bulgari, significantly exceeded expectations during the sale.

The top performing lot of the auction was a perfectly matched pair of unmounted diamonds, each weighing 18.38 carats. Both diamonds were graded Type IIa and D colour, with one graded flawless and the other internally flawless. The pair sold for more than USD $3.2 million. The diamonds were sourced by De Beers from Botswana’s renowned Jwaneng Mine as part of a collaboration with Sotheby’s showcasing exceptional provenance diamonds.

Another standout lot was the “Peacock of Ceylon,” a remarkable 102.4 carat unheated cushion cut sapphire, which achieved nearly USD $2 million at auction.

A further highlight included a 4.12 carat pear shaped fancy pink internally flawless diamond ring, which sold for USD $1.4 million. The Type IIa diamond, graded by the Gemological Institute of America, featured excellent polish and was mounted between tapered baguette diamond shoulders.

The failure of the vivid blue diamond to sell highlights the increasingly selective nature of today’s high end gemstone market, where rarity alone is no longer enough to guarantee a record result.

Source: DCLA

UK Advertising Standards Ruling Targets Lab Diamond Marketing

 

Two online jewellery retailers have been ordered to amend their advertising after the United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that their use of the word “diamond” without clear qualification was misleading to consumers.

According to a report published by the Financial Times, the ASA found that online retailers Linjer and Novita Diamonds breached advertising standards by failing to adequately disclose that the products promoted in paid Google and Meta advertisements were laboratory grown rather than natural diamonds.

The advertisements, which ran in January, were challenged by the Natural Diamond Council and the London Diamond Bourse, both of which argued that consumers could reasonably interpret the term “diamond” to refer to natural diamonds unless otherwise specified.

The ASA ruled that future advertising must include clear and prominent qualifiers such as “synthetic”, “laboratory grown”, or “laboratory created” whenever describing non natural diamond products.

Amber Pepper, CEO of the Natural Diamond Council, described the decision as “a victory for consumers”, while London Diamond Bourse president David Troostwyk said the ruling delivered a strong message that misleading advertising practices would not be tolerated within the jewellery sector.

Linjer stated that it had not realised the advertisements breached the code and confirmed it would work with its marketing agency to ensure appropriate terminology is used in future campaigns. Novita Diamonds maintained that it did not consider its advertising misleading, although it has since amended its advertisements to place the word “lab” before “diamonds” for greater clarity.

Laboratory grown diamonds are manufactured using high pressure high temperature or chemical vapour deposition technology, replicating the crystal structure of natural diamonds through energy intensive industrial processes. Their significantly lower production costs have contributed to rapid market growth in recent years, particularly within the United States jewellery sector.

The Financial Times reported that laboratory grown diamonds now account for approximately 17 per cent of the US retail diamond jewellery market by volume, compared with only 3 per cent in 2020.

The ruling is likely to be viewed as an important development for the natural diamond industry, which has faced increasing price pressure and shifting consumer demand amid the rapid expansion of synthetic diamond sales. For many within the trade, the decision reinforces the importance of accurate terminology, transparency, and consumer confidence in diamond marketing and disclosure standards.

Source: DCLA

Historic Stream Family Collection Heads to Christie’s Auction

 

A remarkable private collection spanning generations of American collectors is set to headline a major auction at Christie’s in New York next month, with expectations that the sale could realise tens of millions of dollars.

The Stream Family Collection was originally assembled by Matilda Geddings Gray, an influential Louisiana oil heiress and respected art patron, before being expanded by her niece, Matilda Gray Stream. Together, the two women built one of the most important private collections of jewellery, Fabergé objects and decorative arts ever to appear at auction.

The collection includes almost 400 pieces featuring works by legendary houses such as Fabergé, Cartier and Tiffany & Co.. Alongside the jewellery are significant examples of silver, porcelain, furniture, paintings, antiquities and glassware.

Among the standout pieces is a rare Fabergé gem set silver rhinoceros automaton dating to around 1900, carrying an estimate of USD $300,000 to $500,000.

The jewellery section reflects a strong Art Deco influence and is led by an exceptional 49.91 carat very light green yellow diamond ring featuring a VS1 clarity old European brilliant cut stone, estimated at USD $500,000 to $700,000.

Other highlights include a Tiffany & Co. Art Deco emerald and diamond bracelet estimated at USD $300,000 to $500,000, together with a Cartier coral, diamond and gold bracelet expected to realise between USD $50,000 and $70,000.

Matilda Geddings Gray began collecting Fabergé in 1933, long before the Russian master became widely recognised in the United States. Her acquisitions included four Imperial Eggs and the celebrated Lilies of the Valley Basket, regarded by many experts as Fabergé’s floral masterpiece.

The live auction, titled A Treasured History: The Stream Family Collection, will take place on 10 June, with an accompanying online sale continuing through to 17 June.

Fancy Colour Diamond Prices Ease Slightly In Q1 2026

The Fancy Color Research Foundation reported a modest decline in fancy colour diamond prices during the first quarter of 2026, reflecting what it described as a stable but highly selective market environment.

According to the latest Fancy Color Diamond Index, overall prices slipped by 0.2 per cent during Q1 2026 following a 0.1 per cent decline in the previous quarter.

Pink diamonds recorded a 0.3 per cent fall across all sizes and intensities during the quarter, while blue diamonds also declined by 0.3 per cent. Yellow diamonds remained unchanged over the quarter but were down 1.2 per cent over the past 12 months.

Despite the softer pricing, the foundation noted that fancy colour diamonds continue to demonstrate resilience, particularly in the highest quality categories where rarity and strong colour saturation remain key drivers of demand.

The strongest performing category during the quarter was 1 carat Fancy Intense Pink diamonds, which rose by 1.9 per cent. The weakest performer was 8 carat Fancy Yellow diamonds, which declined by 1.5 per cent.

Ephraim Zion, managing director of Hong Kong based high jewellery house Dehres, said the market remained highly selective, with buyers focusing increasingly on exceptional stones with standout colour and rarity.

He noted that while headline prices appear relatively stable, the gap between top quality stones and more commercial goods has become increasingly pronounced.

Source: DCLA

WDC President Says “We Need To Finish The Job” On Conflict Diamonds As Debate Over Kimberley Process Expands

 

At the latest World Diamond Council and Kimberley Process meeting in Mumbai, newly elected WDC president Ronnie VanderLinden called on the global jewellery industry to unite behind natural diamonds and push for an expanded definition of so called “conflict diamonds.”

The proposed changes would significantly widen the current Kimberley Process definition, which since 2003 has been limited to rough diamonds sold by rebel groups to finance wars against legitimate governments. Under the new proposal, violence connected to militias, mercenaries, criminal organisations, private military groups and potentially even state actors could all fall under the conflict diamond banner.

VanderLinden told delegates, “We came so close. Now we need to finish the job.”

But behind the moral language and calls for reform lies a far more uncomfortable question rarely discussed openly within the diamond trade.

How large was the actual conflict diamond trade in reality?

At the height of the African civil wars during the 1990s, estimates from the United Nations and industry bodies suggested conflict diamonds represented roughly 3 to 4 percent of global rough diamond production by value. Today, most estimates place that figure well below 1 percent.

In dollar terms, the genuine conflict diamond trade at its peak was estimated at several hundred million dollars annually within a global diamond industry worth tens of billions. While any violence linked to resource extraction is serious, the scale was often portrayed publicly as though the entire natural diamond industry was funding war and instability across Africa.

That narrative created enormous political momentum for the Kimberley Process, introduced in 2003 as an international certification scheme designed to stop rebel financed diamonds entering global markets.

However, critics inside and outside producing nations have long argued the system evolved into something far broader than simply preventing war financing.

Many believe the Kimberley Process became a mechanism that allowed major corporations, powerful producing nations and dominant trading centres to control supply chains, regulate market access and economically pressure smaller African producers attempting to sell diamonds independently into open markets.

Countries such as Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo became heavily dependent on international approval systems dominated by larger political and commercial interests.

The irony is that diamonds themselves were never the root cause of these conflicts.

Civil wars in Africa were driven by poverty, corruption, political instability, foreign interference, weak governance and decades of exploitation dating back to colonial rule. Diamonds simply became a portable source of finance within conflicts that already existed.

In reality, many industries have financed wars throughout history including oil, rare earth minerals, timber, cobalt and even international banking systems. Yet diamonds alone became globally branded with a moral stigma powerful enough to reshape an entire industry.

Critics argue this was not accidental.

The conflict diamond campaign emerged during a period when multinational corporations and Western governments were seeking tighter control over commodity flows, sanctions enforcement and African resource markets. The emotional imagery used in campaigns helped justify increased oversight and certification structures that smaller producing nations often lacked the resources to comply with independently.

Some within the trade privately argue the Kimberley Process created barriers that favoured established corporate supply chains while limiting free market competition from smaller artisanal producers and emerging African exporters.

At the same time, the broader diamond industry has spent decades funding schools, hospitals, infrastructure and employment across producing nations such as Botswana and Namibia, where diamonds became critical pillars of national economic development.

This is part of what VanderLinden referenced when defending natural diamonds during his Mumbai address.

“We have to show what they do, the jobs they create, the communities they support, the countries they help build,” he said.

The timing is also significant.

The natural diamond industry is currently facing growing pressure from lab grown diamonds, weakening consumer demand in China, changing luxury spending patterns and increasing scrutiny over environmental and ethical claims.

Expanding the conflict diamond definition may help restore consumer confidence in natural diamonds, but it also risks reopening political debates about who controls certification systems and who ultimately benefits from them.

For many producing countries, the concern is not simply ethics but sovereignty.

The central issue remains whether international certification systems genuinely protect vulnerable populations or whether they increasingly function as economic gatekeeping tools controlled by powerful governments, NGOs and multinational interests.

The uncomfortable reality is that diamonds did not create Africa’s wars.

Human greed, political corruption, foreign interference and economic exploitation did.

And while the phrase “blood diamonds” became one of the most successful marketing narratives in modern history, the actual percentage of diamonds linked to rebel conflict was always relatively small compared with the enormous global trade in legitimate natural diamonds that continue to support millions of livelihoods around the world.

The Natural Diamond Council has strongly rejected recent claims by Pandora

 

The Natural Diamond Council has strongly rejected recent claims by Pandora that lab-grown diamonds carry a carbon footprint up to 90 per cent lower than natural diamonds, describing the campaign as misleading and damaging to the global natural diamond industry.

Pandora based its claims on a 2019 study conducted by the former Diamond Producers Association, now operating as the Natural Diamond Council. However, the NDC argues the data relied upon is outdated, with some figures tracing back more than a decade, and says the study only reflected a limited segment of the natural diamond sector rather than the industry as a whole.

In an open letter addressed to Pandora CEO Berta De Pablos-Barbier, the NDC criticised what it described as a “PR stunt” designed to unfairly discredit natural diamonds in favour of synthetic alternatives.

The organisation further stated that comparisons between natural and lab-grown diamonds are inherently flawed because they represent two fundamentally different categories. According to the NDC, natural diamonds are rare geological creations formed over billions of years, while lab-grown diamonds are manufactured products capable of being produced in virtually unlimited quantities.

The council warned that reducing the discussion solely to carbon comparisons risks misleading consumers and spreading misinformation about the broader social and economic contribution of the natural diamond industry, which supports millions of people globally through mining, manufacturing and trade.

The NDC also called on Pandora to engage more constructively with industry bodies focused on improving sustainability, environmental stewardship and social responsibility across both the natural and synthetic diamond sectors.

Source: DCLA

Lab-Grown Diamonds Face Growing Scrutiny Over Massive Energy Use and Carbon Footprint

 

While jewellery retailer Pandora has introduced carbon footprint labelling for its laboratory-grown diamonds in response to growing consumer demand for sustainability and transparency, the announcement also highlights an important reality often overlooked in the marketing of synthetic diamonds laboratory-grown diamonds are highly energy-intensive products.

Creating laboratory-grown diamonds requires enormous amounts of electricity to replicate the extreme heat and pressure conditions found deep within the earth. Whether produced through High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT) or Chemical Vapour Deposition (CVD) technology, these processes rely on industrial machinery operating continuously for extended periods, consuming significant energy during crystal growth, cutting and polishing.

Pandora stated that its laboratory-grown diamonds are produced using “100% renewable energy” and claimed their carbon footprint is approximately 90% lower than mined diamonds. However, this depends heavily on the availability, reliability and verification of renewable energy sources, as well as regional electricity grids. In many parts of the world where laboratory-grown diamonds are manufactured, energy generation still relies substantially on fossil fuels, raising ongoing questions about the true environmental impact of mass synthetic diamond production.

The company’s new carbon footprint reporting covers emissions from raw material production through to polishing and has reportedly been verified by external life-cycle assessment experts and reviewed by EY. Pandora says the initiative aims to give consumers greater transparency alongside the traditional 4Cs Cut, Colour, Clarity and Carat by adding what it calls a “5th C” focused on climate impact.

At the same time, the broader diamond industry continues to debate the long-term sustainability claims surrounding laboratory-grown diamonds. Natural diamonds are created by nature over billions of years, while synthetic diamonds require constant industrial energy input to manufacture in controlled factory environments.

As consumer awareness grows, transparency around energy consumption, carbon reporting and manufacturing practices will likely become an increasingly important part of the conversation surrounding both natural and laboratory-grown diamonds.

Source: DCLA