Mumbai (By Suresh Chotai): As India assumes the Chair of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) this year, the global diamond industry sees renewed opportunity for meaningful dialogue on one of the most debated issues within the Process: the definition of so-called “blood” or “conflict” diamonds.
The current Kimberley Process definition, framed in the early 2000s, restricts conflict diamonds to rough stones used by rebel movements to finance wars against legitimate governments. While this framework played a critical role in curbing civil-war-funded diamond trade at the time, stakeholders across producing, manufacturing and consuming countries have increasingly acknowledged that today’s realities are more complex.
A Timely Moment for Dialogue:
India’s chairmanship comes at a time when ethical sourcing, transparency and consumer trust are under intense global scrutiny. With India at the heart of the global diamond value chain—processing and polishing the vast majority of the world’s diamonds—it is uniquely positioned to facilitate balanced and pragmatic discussions among Kimberley Process participants.
“As Chair, India has an opportunity to foster constructive engagement among all stakeholders, including producing nations, trading centres, civil society and industry, to examine whether the current definition remains fit for purpose in today’s context,” industry observers note.
Prospects: Evolution, Not Abrupt Change:
While expectations of an immediate redefinition remain tempered by the Kimberley Process’s consensus-based decision-making, India’s leadership is widely viewed as capable of advancing incremental yet meaningful progress. Divergent views among member countries—particularly on whether and how to include broader human rights concerns—have historically stalled reform. However, India’s diplomatic approach and industry credibility could help narrow these gaps.
Rather than a sudden overhaul, the most realistic outcome during India’s tenure is a reframing of the conversation, laying groundwork for future consensus. This may include clearer articulation of concerns around violence, governance and responsible sourcing, alongside practical measures to strengthen implementation.
Strengthening the System:
In parallel, India is expected to prioritise improvements in governance, compliance and traceability within the Kimberley Process framework. Enhanced monitoring mechanisms, digital solutions and greater transparency can significantly reinforce the system’s credibility, even as discussions on definition continue.
Such steps are seen as essential to ensuring the Kimberley Process remains relevant, credible and aligned with evolving consumer expectations, particularly as parallel regulations and sanctions emerge outside the KP framework.
Looking Ahead:
India’s chairmanship is being viewed as a bridge-building phase—one that may not immediately deliver a new definition of blood diamonds, but can set a constructive tone, restore momentum to stalled discussions and reinforce confidence in the Kimberley Process.
By steering inclusive dialogue and strengthening operational effectiveness, India can play a pivotal role in shaping the next chapter of the Kimberley Process—one that balances ethical imperatives with practical realities of the global diamond trade.
