This document is a statement from the Kimberley Process Civil Society Coalition to the Kimberley Process plenary meeting in 2012. In 3 sentences: The Coalition calls for reforms to the Kimberley Process, citing the need to modernize definitions and procedures to address evolving conflict and human rights issues. It expresses concerns about threats made against civil society members and contradictions between stated commitments and actions of some industry groups. The Coalition remains committed to constructive engagement and cooperative work with the tripartite structures of the Kimberley Process.

1.
Comments of KP Civil Society Coalition
Kimberley Process, Plenary
November 27-30, 2012
Washington, D.C.
Ambassador Milovanovic,
Eli Izakhoff,
Distinguished guests,
Kimberley Process colleagues,
It’s good to see you here again in Washington.
I want to begin with a quote by Barack Obama, about something that has
occupied many of us for the last year, and which will dominate much of the
agenda over the next few days: change—specifically changing the
Kimberley Process to be all it can and should be.
As President Obama said:
“Change will not come if we wait for some other person, or if we wait for
some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the
change that we seek.”
Over the last year, considerable thought, effort and consultation has been
put into acting on the Administrative Decision of Kinshasa that mandated
and informs our current reform discussions.
The need for reforms is not a new concept to us. Many of the issues we are
looking at now have been on the table, in one form or another, for many
years—including a KP office and a broader conflict diamond definition.
We have talked a lot about reforms for many years, but done little to follow
through. But as Obama said, we can’t wait for another time, or for someone
else to do it for us. Ultimately, it is up to us to embrace it, or not.
Civil Society’s position on reform has been clear for a long time. We have
proposed no shortage of ideas aimed at keeping the KP relevant and
flexible to changing dynamics. But the delays and denials from those who

2.
say the KP is fine the way it is cannot continue. Inherent in the current
review process is an acknowledgement that everything is not fine. Its
mandate is to thoroughly question existing procedures, their effectiveness
and come up with creative solutions. Ultimately doing nothing will cost us
all more than the small impositions that may come from the proposed
reforms.
Can you imagine a business operating according to the same business
model it had when it opened its doors a decade earlier? Or a police force
that turned a blind eye to new or evolving forms of criminality because the
existing laws were inadequate? We can’t either. So why is the KP acting as
though the world, and criminality, have remained static since the creation of
the KPCS almost a decade ago?
Some people have called Marange a “KP success” for the way it
innovatively approached the problem at hand. There is some truth in this. It
was a rare example of the KP proving that it could, and should, do things
differently from what the founding members envisioned.
It was the first time the KP responded to a compliance problem by
quarantining production from one region, so as not to affect the national
compliance of that country. It was an appropriate response and one that
the KP should consider repeating in future cases.
But if Marange were a true success one of the key reforms being discussed
here—a new conflict diamond definition—should be accepted without much
debate. For implicit in the KP’s response to Marange was the acceptance
that rights violations by those other than rebel movements not only matter
to the KP, but that the KP has the moral authority to investigate and take
remedial action.
The definition that the KP Chair has proposed—“rough diamonds used to
finance armed conflict or other situations relating to violence affecting
diamond-mining areas”—is in absolute agreement with that used by the
OECD and its work creating responsible mineral supply chains.
It also underpins the efforts of the International Conference on the Great
Lakes Region to create a certification mechanism for other high value,
conflict prone minerals like gold, tin, tungsten and tantalum. It is a definition

3.
approved by the presidents of 11 African governments, five of them also
members of the Kimberley Process.
It is entirely consistent as well with the KP’s initial focus on human rights
violations with a direct relation to diamond zones, and does not seek to
comment on a Participant’s wider human rights record.
This kind of thinking—the innovative approach taken to Marange, as well
as the best practices of other conflict minerals initiatives—is where the KP
should be going if it is to remain the first word on conflict diamonds.
The KP does not have time on its side. A year ago, the Coalition met in
Brussels to evaluate our participation in the KP, and to re-articulate our
vision for a responsibly managed diamond industry.
The communique was a clear call to action for the Kimberley Process. We
pledged our support for the reform process—something we have actively
participated in over the last 11 months—but we also spoke of how the
Coalition would begin to work with other initiatives that showed more
promise, and interest, in achieving better governance of the diamond
industry.
This includes working with industry groups like the Responsible Jewellery
Council to create a chain of custody from mine site to market. We have
also reached out to the OECD to begin designing and implementing a due
diligence guidance for diamonds similar to what they have already done for
gold and the 3Ts. This outreach will deepen in 2013.
We are not the only ones to seek further comfort from initiatives other than
the KP. We welcome with interest the recent launch of the Diamond Source
Warranty Protocol by Jewelers of America and the Diamond Manufacturers
and Importers of America. It is a good example of quarters within industry
taking proactive steps to defend the integrity of the diamond industry.
These initiatives may all be in their infancy, but they point to a reality that
cannot be denied: the longer the KP drags its feet on reforms the more it
will be overtaken by other players.
This will have huge implications for all industry members, as well as
producer nations. All will demand equal or greater responsibility than the

4.
reforms currently considered by the KP. And we haven’t even touched on
the legislative options waiting in the wings. Those that remain bystanders to
change, will be the worst affected.
With this in mind we encourage all parties here this week to approach the
reforms under discussion not only with an open and constructive mind, but
with an intention to adopt them.
Whatever the outcome of reforms here in Washington, we remain
committed to a goal bigger than the KP, however important it is. And that is
to work toward the best management of, and public beneficiation from, a
diamond supply chain free of abuse—in whichever forums show the most
promise.
Over the years the Coalition has worked closely with many of you on a day-
to-day basis, striving to improve the running of the KP and the national
compliance of member nations. Too often the Plenary hears from the
Coalition when issues need to be voiced, and while that criticism can make
some uncomfortable it is always delivered in a constructive way, with the
best interests of the KP at heart.
Many of you here today have spoken—publicly or privately—about the
centrality of civil society to this process. With this in mind the KP civil
society would like to address some recent events that have caused us
great concern. We are speaking specifically about open threats made
against our Zimbabwean colleagues by government officials and members
of the World Diamond Council, all of whom are represented here today.
Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. Similar threats have recently been
made in Liberia and Cote D’Ivoire. They have no place in the KP.
We recognize that the WDC is not a homogenous group. Elements within it
remain committed to the same goals we have always shared, and for that
we appreciate your continued support and friendship.
But recent events in Victoria Falls have made us question whether we have
an honest partner in the WDC. We witnessed a member of your industry
actively inciting intimidation against one of our members, to the extent that
their personal safety was put at risk. This is unacceptable, and
unprecedented in the history of the KP.

5.
We have seen members—particularly in UAE and India—who have, and
continue to, deprive African countries of diamond revenues they deserve.
This includes taking receipt of millions of carats smuggled from Marange
during and after the embargoed period, without any industry outcry or
response.
How can you believe in human rights and a new conflict diamond
definition—as you unanimously confirmed both at your annual meeting in
Vicenza and more recently at the World Diamond Congress in Mumbai—
but then turn around and publicly state your support to individuals with well-
documented involvement in corrupt or violent activity get their stones to
market, as some did in Victoria Falls?
This contradiction poses a difficult perception problem for the industry.
There can, and will be, no upside for your industry in the eyes of
consumers and civil society so long as quarters of your industry pander to
the lowest common denominator and excuse illegality.
Some of you may be producers, others traders, or polishers, or
manufacturers, or retailers, but ultimately you all win and lose together. To
outsiders, bad governance in one country, or by one sector in the supply
chain, taints you equally; however unfairly.
There are options at your disposal. The most obvious is for all sectors of
the industry to reaffirm their commitment to the highest standards of good
governance in the diamond industry. It also requires that you ask the same
of the producer countries with whom you source diamonds.
For our part we remain committed to listening and working collaboratively
with everyone here today. Even in contested areas we will continue to be a
constructive partner. This is most evident in the way our members work at
a national and regional level to improve KP compliance and common
enforcement strategies.
So while we may speak today with concern, the broader experience of
2012 for our members has been one of cooperation with the tripartite
structures of the KP. In West Africa many of us played a central role
brokering a workshop of enforcement officials to create a regional anti-
smuggling strategy; in places like DRC and Sierra Leone our members

6.
work to improve the working conditions and legal rights of artisanal miners;
in Zimbabwe we have supported the KP monitoring team, but also work
with government to create a new diamond policy and Diamond Act. In
Guinea we have contributed to a new mining code; in Cote D’Ivoire we
have worked to help the government and the UN devise a work plan to
bring that country back into compliance.
What is the lesson from these experiences? The KP—in all its parts—wins
when it works with Civil Society as partners, not as adversaries. If we can
leave you with one final recommendation it is that all participants and
observers should seek ways to entrench a national tripartite structure to
their respective countries.
Thank you.