A chance for India to polish the Kimberley Process

India has assumed the chair of the Kimberley Process (KP) for the year 2026. The KP is a multinational mechanism or structure for governing the trade of ‘conflict diamonds’ — the rough (or pre-polished) diamonds which are used illegally by rebel or insurgent groups across the world to undermine or threaten legitimate governments. The KP was initiated in May 2000 when the countries of southern Africa initiated dialogues to prevent the trade in conflict diamonds. Negotiations with 37 signatory parties, in 2003, led to the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS). Today, the KP has 60 participants, representing 86 countries, and accounts for approximately 99.8% of the global rough diamond production.

The current structure

The KPCS is the mechanism to prevent the trade of conflict diamonds, which is enforced individually by KP participant countries to ensure that rough diamonds in the legitimate supply chain are KP-compliant. Each consignment is accompanied by a KP certificate corroborated by a participant country. The rough diamonds trade is permitted only between certified KP members who comply fully with these international standards. Additionally, participant countries are obliged to share timely and accurate statistical data for diamond production and trade.

Angola, Botswana, Canada, Congo, Namibia and Russia alone account for more than 85% of the production of rough diamonds, in quantity and value terms. Though India is not a producer, it is a major importer of rough diamonds, importing roughly 40% of the total global imports, both in quantity and value. As the world’s leading cutting and polishing hub, centered in Surat and Mumbai, India re-exports polished diamonds to major markets which include China, Hong Kong, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and the United States. India’s strategic position, at the heart of the global diamond value chain, gives it unique leverage within the KP to steer meaningful reforms in global diamond governance.

The core issues for India

The KP, a tripartite setup of governments, industry organisations and civil society, faces much criticism and challenges. First, a long-standing criticism is about the definition of ‘conflict diamonds’. Its scope is very narrow, capturing only the financial mechanism between rebel groups and governments, while ignoring the illicit use of rough diamonds in state-linked abuses, human rights violations and human trafficking, environmental harm, abuses in artisanal mining, and illicit trade channels.

There are also fundamental questions about the decision-making process. Civil society asks how the KP can ever identify ‘conflict diamonds’ if any such decision is subject to political veto. Under the current system, any determination can be blocked. What happens when the KP identifies conflict diamonds?

The case of the Central African Republic, which was banned from exporting rough diamonds in 2013 and rejoined in 2024, shows that embargoes without strong support measures tend to increase smuggling and worsen violence rather than stop it. Additionally, while many governments highlighted the need to protect the mining communities, there was less agreement on whether the KP should also address state-related violence. A more inclusive approach would better reflect the full range of challenges communities experience.

Going forward, India may broaden the agenda, without reopening political fights, by forming a technical working group on violence and human rights risks beyond rebel insurgencies. The findings/recommendations from this group may build a consensus before any re-definition of conflict diamonds.

India can leverage its technological strengths to promote digital, tamper-proof KP certificates and harmonised customs data exchange. A blockchain-based certification system, where each shipment carries a unique, immutable and time-stamped digital record linked to key shipment details, would significantly reduce fraud, enhance transparency, and modernise KP operations.

At the same time, India can support producer countries by establishing regional KP technical hubs in key producing areas, particularly in central and eastern Africa, offering training, IT support, certification assistance and forensic capacity. Such capacity-building would make reforms more feasible and collaborative rather than punitive.

Additionally, India can advance institutional reforms by adopting independent or third-party audits in a subset of participants and push for full public release of granular KP statistics from participant countries. This is a step towards greater transparency. Since the KP’s strength is its tripartite structure, India can ensure that civil society engagement remains robust by facilitating open communication channels.

Focus on Africa

To address the community challenges, India can highlight how diamonds contribute to livelihoods in Africa. It can push the KP to explicitly acknowledge this reality by aligning its work with relevant Sustainable Development Goals, such as decent work, poverty reduction and responsible consumption. India can help ensure that the KP framework channels diamond revenues toward community development, supporting health, education, and local infrastructure, rather than allowing mining regions to be bypassed. This would help shift the KP’s narrative from blocking bad diamonds to enabling a responsible and inclusive diamond trade.

India, as the KP chair and the leader of the Global South, should start pursuing the reform agenda more aggressively to make it a more inclusive, progressive, sustainable, and rule-based multilateral body.

Himanshu Jaiswal is Research Fellow at Infisum Modeling. Badri Narayanan is the Founder and Director of Infisum Modeling

Published – February 10, 2026 12:08 am IST