WHAT ARE CONFLICT DIAMONDS

WHAT ARE CONFLICT DIAMONDS

Conflict diamonds, also known as blood diamonds, are diamonds that have been mined in war zones and sold to finance armed conflict against governments. These diamonds are typically mined under inhumane conditions by workers who are often forced to work in dangerous and exploitative conditions.
The profits from the sale of these diamonds are then used to fund armed conflicts, which often involve violence, human rights abuses, and forced labor. This cycle of violence and exploitation is known as the “diamond curse.”
To combat the trade in conflict diamonds, the international community has established the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, which requires that all rough diamonds be certified as conflict-free before they can be sold on the international market. The Kimberley Process has helped to significantly reduce the trade in conflict diamonds, but concerns remain about the effectiveness of the scheme and the ongoing trade in illicit diamonds.

What percentage of diamond production are conflict diamonds
The percentage of diamond production that can be considered conflict or blood diamonds has decreased significantly since the introduction of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme in 2003. According to the Kimberley Process, the percentage of conflict diamonds in the global diamond trade has fallen from approximately 15% in the 1990s to less than 1% today.
However, it is important to note that some critics have raised concerns about the effectiveness of the Kimberley Process in preventing the trade in conflict diamonds. They argue that the definition of conflict diamonds used by the Kimberley Process is too narrow, and that some diamonds mined in areas of conflict may still be entering the market through illegal channels.
Furthermore, there have been reports of human rights abuses and unethical practices in diamond mining in countries that are not considered conflict zones. So while the percentage of conflict diamonds in the global diamond trade is believed to be low, it is important to remain vigilant and continue efforts to ensure that all diamonds are mined and traded ethically and responsibly.

How do i ensure the diamond i buy is conflict free
To ensure that the diamond you buy is conflict-free, you should look for a diamond that has been certified as such by a reputable organization. The most widely recognized certification scheme for conflict-free diamonds is the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), which was established in 2003 to prevent the trade in conflict diamonds.
Here are some steps you can take to ensure that the diamond you buy is conflict-free:

1. Buy from a reputable jeweller: Look for a jeweller that is committed to selling conflict-free diamonds and has a policy in place to verify the origin of their diamonds. Many jewelers are members of organizations that promote ethical and responsible diamond sourcing, such as the Responsible Jewellery Council or the Jewelers of America.
2. Ask for a certificate of authenticity: Ask your jeweller for a certificate of authenticity that verifies the origin of the diamond you are interested in buying. The certificate should state that the diamond is conflict-free and has been mined and traded in compliance with the Kimberley Process.
3. Look for laser inscriptions: Some diamonds may have a laser inscription on the girdle that indicates the origin of the diamond and its certification number. This can be a helpful way to verify the diamond’s origin and ensure that it is conflict-free.
4. Consider buying a lab-grown diamond: Lab-grown diamonds are an ethical and sustainable alternative to mined diamonds. They are produced in a laboratory using advanced technology and do not have the same environmental or social impacts as mined diamonds.
   

By taking these steps, you can help ensure that the diamond you buy is conflict-free and has been mined and traded in a responsible and ethical manner.

Source: Roy Cohen DCLA

Kimberley Process to Hold Hybrid Plenary Meeting

 

Kimberley Process Rough diamonds. 

The annual Kimberley Process (KP) plenary will take place online and in person from November 8 to 12, with the digitization of certificates featuring at the top of the agenda.

The hybrid format enables the KP to continue its activities despite the restrictions resulting from the coronavirus pandemic, Russia’s Finance Ministry, which is chairing the organization this year, said last week. Those eligible to visit Moscow under Covid-19 rules will be able to attend the physical event.

The meeting will focus on modernizing the KP export and import documents for rough diamonds. The ministry is currently finalizing a pilot program involving an information exchange with one of Russia’s key trading partners and plans to present its findings soon, it said.

The KP will also consider the applications of new countries wishing to join the group, having paused this due to travel difficulties. Since the easing of the situation, the KP has organized missions to Qatar and Kyrgyz Republic, and plans to do the same in Mozambique. The chairmanship and the committee that handles applications for participation in the KP will consider the reports emanating from those visits.

The Central African Republic (CAR) will also be on the agenda, with the KP planning to send an expert mission to the country to evaluate its compliance with rules aimed at preventing the export of conflict diamonds. In addition, the KP will select a new vice chair for 2022, with that country taking over as chair in 2023 from Botswana, which is slated to take the helm next year.

Meanwhile, Russia will work with KP partners to reach a consensus on the location of a future permanent KP secretariat to help streamline the organization’s work.

The KP canceled the 2020 plenary and intersessional meetings because of the pandemic. However, the 2021 intersessional took place in June, focusing on topics including digitization and human rights.

Source: DCLA

Kimberley Process to Hold Hybrid Plenary Meeting

 

Kimberley Process Rough diamonds. 

The annual Kimberley Process (KP) plenary will take place online and in person from November 8 to 12, with the digitization of certificates featuring at the top of the agenda.

The hybrid format enables the KP to continue its activities despite the restrictions resulting from the coronavirus pandemic, Russia’s Finance Ministry, which is chairing the organization this year, said last week. Those eligible to visit Moscow under Covid-19 rules will be able to attend the physical event.

The meeting will focus on modernizing the KP export and import documents for rough diamonds. The ministry is currently finalizing a pilot program involving an information exchange with one of Russia’s key trading partners and plans to present its findings soon, it said.

The KP will also consider the applications of new countries wishing to join the group, having paused this due to travel difficulties. Since the easing of the situation, the KP has organized missions to Qatar and Kyrgyz Republic, and plans to do the same in Mozambique. The chairmanship and the committee that handles applications for participation in the KP will consider the reports emanating from those visits.

The Central African Republic (CAR) will also be on the agenda, with the KP planning to send an expert mission to the country to evaluate its compliance with rules aimed at preventing the export of conflict diamonds. In addition, the KP will select a new vice chair for 2022, with that country taking over as chair in 2023 from Botswana, which is slated to take the helm next year.

Meanwhile, Russia will work with KP partners to reach a consensus on the location of a future permanent KP secretariat to help streamline the organization’s work.

The KP canceled the 2020 plenary and intersessional meetings because of the pandemic. However, the 2021 intersessional took place in June, focusing on topics including digitization and human rights.

Source: DCLA

Tensions Rise over Definition of Conflict Diamonds

 

                          large rough diamond

A recent global meeting of the Kimberley Process (KP) ended in controversy as Chinese delegates allegedly clashed with a representative of nonprofit organizations on the issue of conflict diamonds.

Attendees from China interrupted a closing statement by Shamiso Mtisi, the coordinator of the Civil Society Coalition, after he criticized the country’s approach to the matter, Mtisi claimed this week. Part of the Chinese delegation left the Zoom meeting in protest, according to another participant.

Speaking at last month’s intersessional, Mtisi singled out China, India and Angola for failing to make progress on the KP’s definition of conflict stones, a central point of debate within the KP.

Proposals to update the definition have been under discussion for many years. The current language limits the term to rough goods used by a rebel group to finance conflict but excludes violence by ruling authorities.

The topic was on the agenda at the intersessional meeting from June 21 to 25, which took place online for the first time because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

However, China, India, Angola and other countries argued that the KP was not a forum for discussing human rights because the organization was for “trade issues,” Mtisi reported. Some governments also pointed out that the KP lacked a mandate to make the change, he said. Under KP rules, a revamp of the wording can only happen when all participating governments give their approval.

Potential motives

The reasons for the trio’s reluctance are murky, leading to speculation about possible factors.

China has invested in diamond mining in Zimbabwe, a producing nation with a contentious history of violence at its deposits, Mtisi explained to Rapaport News. He also alleged that India — the world’s largest rough importer — benefited from cheap diamonds originating in countries affected by human-rights violations. It is not clear why Angola, a mining nation, would oppose an updated definition, given its history of conflict, he said.

The question over the definition of conflict diamonds “is a sensitive issue that needs consensus at the level of all participants and observers,” a spokesperson for Angola’s Ministry of Mineral Resources, Petroleum and Gas said last week. “It is the role of [KP] participants and observers to discuss and reach consensus [on] when the definition of conflict diamonds should be changed.”

Mtisi also alleged that authorities in Angola’s Lunda Norte diamond-mining province were “violently” suppressing community protests against the “destruction of villages and livelihoods.” The Angolan government denied this.

The governments of China and India did not respond to requests for comment by press time. The Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC), India’s main trade body for the sector, said it had never opposed rewriting the key definition if it helped create a more sustainable industry free of human-rights violations.

Zoom protest

At one point of his virtual speech, Mtisi — deputy director of the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association, which leads the Civil Society Coalition — named the three countries that, he claimed, had been dragging their feet for years.

“[The China delegates] unmuted their mic and they started shouting,” he alleged in an interview with Rapaport News. “I didn’t hear exactly what they were protesting about, but they were protesting about my speech and the mention of China as having blocked any discussions on [conflict-diamond] definitions.”

Russia, as chair, offered the protesting governments the opportunity to respond at the end of the speech, said Edward Asscher, president of the World Diamond Council (WDC), which represents the trade at the KP. The US, Canada, the European Union and the WDC all stated their views.

“We pointed out the importance of freedom of speech, and [the] KP meetings should not be an exception,” Asscher stated.

While there was progress at the intersessional, there was still no widespread agreement, Asscher said. He acknowledged that some governments wanted to delay the discussions to a later time.

“Even though consensus was not reached, the discussions allowed participants — governments, civil society and industry — to express their positions,” the president continued. “It is only through discussion and hearing everyone’s concerns that we will make progress towards a wider definition.”

This is not the first incident of this type. At the welcome ceremony of the 2017 intersessional meeting, Chinese delegates reportedly shouted in protest against the involvement of Taiwan, which it did not consider to be a state eligible to take part in such events.

“All delegations at the KP meetings have both a right to be heard and a right to respond to any representations made, which is absolutely fundamental,” a spokesperson for Russia’s KP operation said this week. “Yes, sometimes listening to each other and trying to reach consensus is not an easy task and requires commitment and engagement from all parties around the very large and diverse KP table, and yes, sometimes people do get emotional. But we are confident that this cannot serve as an excuse for disarray.”

Source: DCLA

Tensions Rise over Definition of Conflict Diamonds

 

                          large rough diamond

A recent global meeting of the Kimberley Process (KP) ended in controversy as Chinese delegates allegedly clashed with a representative of nonprofit organizations on the issue of conflict diamonds.

Attendees from China interrupted a closing statement by Shamiso Mtisi, the coordinator of the Civil Society Coalition, after he criticized the country’s approach to the matter, Mtisi claimed this week. Part of the Chinese delegation left the Zoom meeting in protest, according to another participant.

Speaking at last month’s intersessional, Mtisi singled out China, India and Angola for failing to make progress on the KP’s definition of conflict stones, a central point of debate within the KP.

Proposals to update the definition have been under discussion for many years. The current language limits the term to rough goods used by a rebel group to finance conflict but excludes violence by ruling authorities.

The topic was on the agenda at the intersessional meeting from June 21 to 25, which took place online for the first time because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

However, China, India, Angola and other countries argued that the KP was not a forum for discussing human rights because the organization was for “trade issues,” Mtisi reported. Some governments also pointed out that the KP lacked a mandate to make the change, he said. Under KP rules, a revamp of the wording can only happen when all participating governments give their approval.

Potential motives

The reasons for the trio’s reluctance are murky, leading to speculation about possible factors.

China has invested in diamond mining in Zimbabwe, a producing nation with a contentious history of violence at its deposits, Mtisi explained to Rapaport News. He also alleged that India — the world’s largest rough importer — benefited from cheap diamonds originating in countries affected by human-rights violations. It is not clear why Angola, a mining nation, would oppose an updated definition, given its history of conflict, he said.

The question over the definition of conflict diamonds “is a sensitive issue that needs consensus at the level of all participants and observers,” a spokesperson for Angola’s Ministry of Mineral Resources, Petroleum and Gas said last week. “It is the role of [KP] participants and observers to discuss and reach consensus [on] when the definition of conflict diamonds should be changed.”

Mtisi also alleged that authorities in Angola’s Lunda Norte diamond-mining province were “violently” suppressing community protests against the “destruction of villages and livelihoods.” The Angolan government denied this.

The governments of China and India did not respond to requests for comment by press time. The Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC), India’s main trade body for the sector, said it had never opposed rewriting the key definition if it helped create a more sustainable industry free of human-rights violations.

Zoom protest

At one point of his virtual speech, Mtisi — deputy director of the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association, which leads the Civil Society Coalition — named the three countries that, he claimed, had been dragging their feet for years.

“[The China delegates] unmuted their mic and they started shouting,” he alleged in an interview with Rapaport News. “I didn’t hear exactly what they were protesting about, but they were protesting about my speech and the mention of China as having blocked any discussions on [conflict-diamond] definitions.”

Russia, as chair, offered the protesting governments the opportunity to respond at the end of the speech, said Edward Asscher, president of the World Diamond Council (WDC), which represents the trade at the KP. The US, Canada, the European Union and the WDC all stated their views.

“We pointed out the importance of freedom of speech, and [the] KP meetings should not be an exception,” Asscher stated.

While there was progress at the intersessional, there was still no widespread agreement, Asscher said. He acknowledged that some governments wanted to delay the discussions to a later time.

“Even though consensus was not reached, the discussions allowed participants — governments, civil society and industry — to express their positions,” the president continued. “It is only through discussion and hearing everyone’s concerns that we will make progress towards a wider definition.”

This is not the first incident of this type. At the welcome ceremony of the 2017 intersessional meeting, Chinese delegates reportedly shouted in protest against the involvement of Taiwan, which it did not consider to be a state eligible to take part in such events.

“All delegations at the KP meetings have both a right to be heard and a right to respond to any representations made, which is absolutely fundamental,” a spokesperson for Russia’s KP operation said this week. “Yes, sometimes listening to each other and trying to reach consensus is not an easy task and requires commitment and engagement from all parties around the very large and diverse KP table, and yes, sometimes people do get emotional. But we are confident that this cannot serve as an excuse for disarray.”

Source: DCLA