The Kimberley Process has been credited with curbing conflict diamonds but criticised for its narrow definition. Critically examine its relevance, in the context of India's 2026 Chairship.

The Kimberley Process (KP) began with a UN General Assembly resolution in December 2000 [3]. It brings governments, industry and civil society together to certify that rough diamonds are conflict-free. India holds the Chair for the third time in 2026, under the "3Cs" theme: Confidence, Compliance, Credibility [1]. The regime it takes over is still useful, but it is under strain.

Relevance: What the KP Has Achieved

• Market floor: Botswana told the UNGA that about 99.8% of global rough diamond production is conflict-free [4].
• Inclusive forum: It is the only forum where producers, traders and civil society sit together. It has 60 Participants representing 86 countries [2].
• Stake for India: India is a cutting and polishing hub that depends on imported rough diamonds. Members of the African Diamond Producers' Association (ADPA) produce over 60% of global output [2].

Limitations: Why Critics Question It

• Narrow definition: It covers only diamonds that fund rebel movements. Wars fought by states and violence at mine sites fall outside it. Latvia told the UN Security Council that the KP cannot deal with Russian diamonds funding the war in Ukraine [5]. So the 99.8% figure measures only what the definition covers.
• Consensus paralysis: The 2023 Plenary agreed on 98 of 99 recommendations but still produced no communiqué, a first in KP history [4].
• Weak enforcement: Compliance is voluntary. Global Witness warned the KP could become "little more than a paper-pushing exercise" [6].
• Traceability gap: Certificates show where a stone was mined. They do not show how it was mined or where the money went.

India's 2026 Chairship: Way Forward

• Building consensus early: India held consultations in Mumbai and Luanda before the Plenary [1][2]. The GJEPC–ADPA MoU on sorting, valuation and manufacturing helps win producers' trust [2].
• Step-by-step definition reform: Agree on narrower wording first, such as violence at mine sites, instead of rewriting the whole definition at once.
• Institutional reform: Revive the permanent secretariat and multi-donor fund agenda that India led as Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Review and Reform (AHCRR) in 2017 [7].
• Data-driven credibility: Promote the statistical reporting platform, so that credibility rests on checkable data [2].
• Separate the Russia dispute: Use India's ties with both Russia and the West to handle it in its own track, so other agreed decisions can still pass.

The KP remains a necessary minimum floor for the rough diamond trade, but it is not a full ethics standard. As Chair, India should widen the KP without breaking it: reform the definition step by step, set up a permanent secretariat and publish transparent data. That would turn the 3Cs into practice and support SDG 16 (strong institutions) and SDG 8 (decent work) in producing communities.