Reforming the Kimberley Process: Are blood diamonds truly a girl’s best friend?

PHOTO: A pile of diamonds (2021), Jerry Cone on Wikimedia Commons

From Breakfast at Tiffany’s to Marilyn Monroe’s “diamonds are a girl’s best friend”, diamonds are sold to consumers through rarity and romance. 

However, behind the glitz and the glamour of an annual 300-billion-dollar industry lies a troubling reality. From alleged human rights abuses to multilateral pitfalls, it appears diamonds aren’t the only thing you find when you dig below the surface. In November 2025, the Kimberley Process, a process designed to reduce the production of conflict diamonds, failed to reach consensus for the third year in a row.

While multilateral processes remain stagnant, issues associated with diamond mining remain. Human Rights Watch reported that an estimated upwards of one million children “work globally in artisanal and small-scale mining, in violation of international human rights law,” which deems underground, underwater or hazardous work among the worst forms of child labour. 

Diamond engagement rings are sold with a hefty price, justified by a conflict-free label and promise of rarity. However, diamonds are in abundance, with approximately 130 million carats of diamonds mined each year according to Agriculture Insight. So how did the diamond industry con consumers?

For most of the 20^th century, British-South African corporation De Beers, founded by imperialist Cecil Rhodes, monopolised the diamond industry, owning up to 80% of the diamond supply. To market diamonds as scarce, De Beers employed a strategy of stockpiling and regulating distribution, increasing demand for a largely American consumer base. This legacy remains, with De Beers currently controlling 35% of the global supply, with their motto “a diamond is forever”, still present in the conscience of consumers searching for the perfect engagement ring. 

Colonial origins of blood diamonds 

The modern-day conflict diamond, or rather blood diamond, has colonial origins. Colonial governments would leave newly independent states with a poor economy, minimal social services and few educational institutions. Consequently, states like Sierra Leone turned to the International Monetary Fund for assistance. The IMF required the country to devalue its currency, simultaneously lowering the cost of Sierra Leone’s minerals, incentivising diamond mining and decreasing government revenue from these diamonds.  

Diamonds disconnected from public welfare left Sierra Leone without the institutions to govern diamond fields, prompting smuggling and illicit trade which would lead to rebels governing the fields. Consequently, during the civil war in Sierra Leone from 1991-2002, the rebel Revolutionary United Front group dominated diamond mines, stealing children and forcing them to become soldiers and work in diamond mines. 

Similarly, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), colonial administrations prioritised diamond extraction and foreign profits, employing violent practices through colonial armies that were inherited by following militia groups. 

International regulations struggled to prevent smuggling, exemplified by the National Union for Total Independence of Angola circumventing the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1173 on the prohibition of Angolan diamonds by smuggling the rough diamonds into Zambia and the DRC. 

This Resolution, adopted in 1998, was a key precursor to the Kimberley Process, as it was the first time the Security Council targeted the trade of rough diamonds to stop them financing conflict. 

What is the Kimberley Process?

The Kimberley Process (KP) is a global initiative and trade regime which aims to enhance oversight and transparency in the diamond supply chain to eliminate conflict diamonds. 

The Process was established in 2002 after civil society movements, including those by the Global Witness, incited public outrage. Pop-culture, including the movie Blood Diamond, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, and Kanye West’s song, Diamonds from Sierra Leone, also brought to light how diamonds were funding the civil war in Sierra Leone. 

The Kimberley Process includes a certification scheme which requires participants to certify that shipments are conflict-free. For example, Australia as a member outlines that all exporters of rough diamonds from Australia must first apply for a Kimberley Process Certificate and include proof of origin of the diamonds through evidence such as the original purchase receipt. 

The Kimberley Process proudly asserts that today “participants actively prevent 99.8% of the trade of blood diamonds”, however, according to the Global Witness, the Kimberley Process is limited in its definition of a blood diamond. 

Where does the Kimberley Process fall short? 

In the Process, conflict diamonds are defined as “rough diamonds used by rebel movements to finance wars against legitimate governments”, omitting mention of state-sponsored violence and labour exploitation. 

The diamond trade in Zimbabwe prompted calls to re-examine the definition as the diamond mines were deemed by the Process to be governed by a legitimate government rather than rebel groups. Since the early 2000s, Human Rights Watch has alleged that Zimbabwe’s armed forces engage in forced labour of children and adults alongside torturing and beating local villagers on the Marange diamond fields.

This oversight of definition extends to Europe, where the sale of diamonds from Russia to fund the war in Ukraine aren’t covered by the KP, rendering Russian diamonds technically conflict-free. European Union officials released a public statement claiming that the Kimberley Process has “failed for a third year in a row” to address the impact of Russia’s war in Ukraine on the global rough diamond sector. This claim also stems from the KP being able to ban diamond exports from certain states, as it did in 2013 after rebels controlled the Central African Republic. Russia accounts for approximately 25-30% of global production of rough diamonds, and its government holds a one-third stake in Alrosa—the world’s largest diamond producer. 

The KP is also narrow in its definition, as it only applies to rough diamonds, meaning that once stones are cleaved and polished, they are no longer covered. This is particularly worrying given that diamond polishing and cutting sweatshops in Surat, India were accused of employing up to 30,000 children, according to The Guardian in 2007. The polishing business has since been urged to expand fair labour practices, however, changes to the KP criteria must be made with consensus. Consequently, states like Russia, China and Zimbabwe have blocked, disrupted or watered down the expansion of the process. 

At the most recent KP Plenary in Dubai in November 2025, the African Diamond Producers Association backed the proposal to broaden the definition of blood diamonds. However, Western states including the EU, UK, Canada and Australia blocked the reforms, claiming they did not address Russian diamonds, according to the Association. 

In response, Feriel Zerouki, President of the World Diamond Council, claimed that:

“Progress was killed in pursuit of the impossible… some signalled that the lives of diamond miners in Africa are not as valuable as lives elsewhere.” 

The Kimberley Process has also been criticised by The Kimberley Process Civil Society Coalition for enabling greenwashing, providing an ethical seal of approval for diamonds that are traded by paramilitary groups such as the Russian-led Wagner mercenary group in the Central African Republic. 

PHOTO: Siberian Diamond Mine (2019), US/Japan ASTER Science Team on Wikimedia Commons 

Despite being a proud signatory to the Kimberley Process and the world’s sixth biggest diamond producer in 2015, Australia has its own historic and contemporary issues associated with the diamond industry. A vast majority of Australian diamonds and 90% of the world’s pink diamonds came from the Argyle mine in remote Western Australia before its closure in 2020. The Argyle diamond mine used to provide a third of the world’s diamonds from the 1980s to its closure, according to GeoScience Australia. The land was set to be returned to traditional owners in November 2020, not as a humanitarian or environmental effort, but rather after it had exhausted diamond reserves. 

As the company Rio Tinto is currently in the process of giving back the land, Indigenous communities view the transfer as inherited harm. The company has been removing infrastructure, leaving harmful chemicals, creating environmental degradation, impacting livelihoods and the ability to use natural resources such as waterways for fishing. Despite issues of Indigenous land rights and chemical harm, Australia hosted the Plenary meeting for the Kimberley Process in 2017 and is one of the 86 countries committed to eliminating blood diamonds. 

Can the Kimberley Process be expanded or reformed? 

The consensus-based structure of the KP has made reform difficult, with groups like the Kimberley Process Civil Society Coalition declaring that blood diamonds should be classified as those “used to finance widespread or systemic violence”. 

The KP Civil Society Coalition suggests that transparency is key to improvement and recommends targeting strict confidentiality. 

The public has limited access to KP findings outside of its statistics page. Notably, the public cannot access detailed information surrounding violations or specific country reviews. 

Currently, the private sector is not required to undergo independent audits, publish results or report on compliance, making them not in alignment with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas. Consequently, KP participants lack independent data to verify claims, meaning that other KP participants cannot verify foreign company claims—if the company has the certificate, it is accepted. 

According to Human Rights Watch, most jewellery companies examined in its report were unable to trace their gold and diamonds to the mine of origin. This is particularly striking given that the 15 companies featured in the report were some of the largest, most well-known and expensive watch and jeweller companies. 

The KP Civil Society Coalition also suggested that the Kimberley Process fails to address today’s broader mineral governance challenges.

Diamonds in the wider context of the current blood minerals and earth metals crisis 

Diamonds are just a small part of the blood minerals and earth metals equation. The DRC has approximately 23 trillion dollars’ worth of untapped natural rare earth metals and minerals; as a result rebel militias and foreign-backed armed groups fight to control deposit sites. In early 2025, fighting between DRC government forces and militant groups led by Rwandan-backed M23 resulted in M23’s takeover of Goma on the Rwandan border. During this period between 900–2,000 people were killed, against the backdrop of approximately six million deaths in the DRC since the late 1990s. 

US companies once owned most cobalt mines in the Congo, yet most of these were sold to China from 2008–2020. In response, the Biden administration claimed that China’s monopoly on DRC mining enhances their comparative advantage in energy and technology sectors. Globally, China mines 60% of the world’s rare earth metals and controls over 90% of the processing and manufacturing of permanent magnets—crucial in electric vehicle motors, defence systems, mobile phones and industrial robots.  

The current race to dominate rare earth metals and minerals across Central and Western Africa has led to the displacement of 3.7 million people, according to the United Nations. 

PHOTO: Artisanal cobalt miners in the Democratic Republic of Congo (2020), The International Institute for Environment and Development on Wikimedia Commons

Should consumers make the switch to lab-grown? 

The combination of a limited definition of a blood diamond, state interests blocking reform, loopholes in private sector compliance and claims of greenwashing have created distrust in the “conflict-free” label seen in so many stores today, prompting consumers to seek out a more ethical alternative. 

The global lab-grown diamond market is estimated to grow to AU$90 billion by 2032, growing at an annual rate of 9.6%. However, while the switch to lab-grown diamonds may seem appealing, it is not completely clean of exploitation. Surat, India, the world’s largest cutting and polishing hub, has recently seen wages drop by 50-75% as polishers swap from authentic to lab-grown diamonds, according to the Times of India. 

Given these pressing humanitarian concerns, one question remains: where does the onus lie? Upon consumers to boycott natural diamonds, or corporations and states to reform due-diligence and multilateral processes?