The short answer is no.

Here’s why.  The Kimberley Process (KP) was only ever designed to stop diamonds funding conflict, it never said anything about working conditions, miners getting fair prices for their products, child labour etc.  So while there’s only a very slim chance that in 2020 your diamonds will be funding conflict, there’s a much bigger chance they will have been mined by somebody in a very poor country being exploited. Is that ethical?

Sadly in 2020 there’s even doubt that the KP is even fulfilling its original purpose.  Many of the NGO’s, such as Global witness, who were part of setting up the Kimberley process have now abandoned it, criticising it for failing to protect the people it was supposedly designed to help.

So what is the Kimberley Process?

The KP is a scheme that was designed to track diamonds so that their origin and route to market could be traced.  The idea being that diamonds produced in regions of conflict could not enter the worldwide diamond trade, making it very hard for them to be sold at all and the money used to buy weapons, ammo, pay soldiers etc.

In practice, the KP requires companies to declare that the goods they have purchased are compliant with a series of declarations worded by the KP and agreed upon by all KP participants.  Diamonds are transported in sealed boxes between companies to ensure that goods that are not compliant with the process are not mixed in and the process as a whole it audited by various groups.

In the KP’s own words: The Kimberley Process (KP) unites administrations, civil societies, and industry in reducing the flow of conflict diamonds - ‘rough diamonds used to finance wars against governments’ - around the world.

One thing of note is the KP’S very narrow definition of ‘conflict diamonds’.

The issue of conflict diamonds

The issue of conflict diamonds or ‘blood diamonds’ really came to a head in 2001 as it was revealed to what extend diamonds had funded conflicts in Sierra Leone, Angola and the DRC.

At the time of its creation, the Kimberley process was seen by many as an effective solution to the problem of diamonds funding conflict.  Global Witness, who played a major part in bringing the scandal of ’blood diamonds’ to the world’s attention, backed the scheme as did other NGO’s.

Since then Global Witness and other NGO’s have withdrawn their support and have been critical of its governance, implementation and its remit.  However, jewellers and the diamond industry still support the KP and have resisted calls to change it.

Since its creation, the wars in Sierra Leone and Angola have finished, conflict in the DRC rumbles on and conflict has flared up in the CAR which has been identified as a hotspot for illicit diamond trading. In that time smuggling, corruption, money laundering, mass fraud, unfair and dangerous working conditions, child labour and environmental damage have emerged as concerns.

The Zimbabwe controversy 

In 2011, Following a series of controversies with regards to the Marange diamond fields in Zimbabwe, global witness withdrew its support of the KP.  Significant human rights violations, murder, forced labour, corruption and illegal activity were bought to the world’s attention, however, at a meeting of the KP, it was decided that the diamonds from Marange met the Kimberley processes basic requirements and these diamonds would be allowed to enter the global supply chain with KP certification. 

These diamonds have since entered the system, under the guarantees of the KP and have spread across the world, untraced and with a veneer of legitimacy under the KP.

This was seen as a major test (and subsequent failure) the processes effectiveness in protecting the people most at risk.

It is true that the goings-on at the Marange diamond fields did not directly contravene the wording of the KP.  The funds from the sale of the diamonds did not go to a rebel group in conflict against a legitimate regime, however, people still died, were tortured and exploited. A major criticism of the processes governance was its willingness to rigidly stick to the original guidelines and not evolve the process as time and circumstances moved on.

The abuses carried out at Marange were by the Zimbabwean government, not a rebel group, which is why it was decided that they did not break the KP rules.

To be clear, if you have bought a diamond since 2011, there is a chance it has come from Marange in Zimbabwe unless it is from a closed supply chain system such as Canadamark. This diamond complies with the KP, but that doesn’t mean somebody didn’t die for it. Please dont just take our word for it, this was well reported and confirmed by diamond industry participants.

Other controversies, including diamond smuggling in Cameroon and conflict in the Central African Republic have lead to further questions about the effectiveness of the Kimberley Process.

The Jewellery industry response

The controversy in Zimbabwe was well reported, as were goings-on in the CAR and Cameroon. The jewellery industry was well aware of what was going on. Therefore, you’d think that they would make it clear to their customers that they need to go above and beyond the KP to ensure they were buying ethical diamonds.

Some have, though they are in a small minority.

Many jewellers will still use the KP to answer any questions customers have about conflict diamonds. They completely fail to mention the failings and limited scope of the KP. This approach relys on a customers trusting their jeweller, which many do.

One example is this page from online jeweller 77diamonds. Notice, the page and url are titles ‘ethical-diamonds’. You would be forgiven for thinking this page was a reputable source of information about ethical diamonds.

This is one of the reasons we have set up the ethical jewellery blog. We want to arm you with the knowledge and questions to ask a jeweller to make sure you can make the choice that best aligns with your views.