“As a result, the process is not equipped to deal with the ties between the diamond trade and the violation of human rights,” says Alice Harle, an advocacy officer at Global Witness. It’s a narrow definition, which excludes a broad range of other violations of human rights such as child labour.Īnother sore point is that the process is only applicable to rough diamonds – cut and polished diamonds are therefore left out of the traceability process. The process also holds a certificate that enables the traceability of rough diamonds, from their mining to their commercialisation.Įven if the process covers almost the entirety of the global diamond trade, its effectiveness has been called into question several times, to the point where the NGO Global Witness, who played a key role in establishing the process, left.Īmong sensitive issues is the definition of the world’s “conflict diamond”, which is defined by the Kimberley process as “ rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance armed conflicts aimed at undermining legitimate governments”. Member states can therefore only import and export diamonds amongst each other. More specifically, the Kimberley process establishes strict guidelines obliging the 81 participating countries to control the import and export of rough diamonds. Launched in 2002 to fight against “blood diamonds”, particularly in Africa where two-thirds of the world’s diamond production originates, the Kimberley process’ purpose is to ensure a more responsible diamond trade. The European Union has taken over the chairmanship of the Kimberley process for the year, following Australia. However, with the EU at its head in 2018, the subject of corporate responsibility could come up in talks. The fight against conflict diamonds has slowed down since the creation of the Kimberley process in 2002.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |