In 2001 and 2002, the world watched in
horror as marauding mobs in Sierra Leone, supported by Liberia's Taylor, attacked
ethnic minority groups -- hacking limbs (and occasionally heads) in a bid to
extend Taylor's control of the country's diamond trade. In the same period, in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, diamonds funded both sides of a civil
war. Angola, meanwhile, was just beginning to recover from a decades-long civil
war. In each of these conflicts, diamonds played a central role: They either
acted as a key driver or, as in the case of Angola, a source of funding that
allowed rebels to continue to fight.
NGOs, led by London-based Global
Witness, began a campaign in the late 1990s to draw public attention to that
role. Members of the activist coalition argued that the mining companies,
trading firms and even jewelers were playing a role in sustaining the conflicts,
and they called on each of these actors in the industry to address the issue.
Around the same time, in 1999, a United Nations study of the war in Angola
cited diamonds as a key factor in warring factions' ability to procure weapons
and transport. The report argued that many countries were helping to smuggle
and launder Angolan diamonds for the rebels, and the U.N. concluded that the
monitoring systems that were in place were "wholly inadequate" to
monitor an illegal diamond trade.
Industry's initial response to the NGO
campaign was weak. De Beers took some steps to reduce sourcing from conflict
zones, but that only left a void in the market that competitors quickly filled.
Retailers, meanwhile, did not see themselves as responsible for the various
crises in Africa -- only a small percentage of diamonds on the market (less
than 5 percent) could be classified as "conflict diamonds," and
retailers had no idea where the diamonds they were selling had originated. And
those who might have felt a sense of shared responsibility also saw themselves
as having limited power to change the situation.
However, as Global Witness and its
allies drew greater public attention toward the role of diamonds in African
conflicts, retailers noticed that the public's perception of diamonds was
changing in Europe and the United States. Though diamonds were still in demand,
their luster had been slightly dulled. That was significant: Unless you're
talking about a diamond's industrial uses in drill bits and other machinery, its
value lies chiefly in public perception. On the jewelry market, diamonds are
worth only what buyers are willing to pay for their aesthetic beauty and the
prestige associated with them -- and jewelers have other beautiful stones they
can sell.
Thus, the dimmer the public's view of
diamonds became, the more vulnerable the industry began to feel. The outcome of
all of this was the Kimberley Process -- a certification regime that tracks the
locations of a diamond throughout its life cycle, from the mine to the jeweler.
Under this system, each link in the
chain of custody must prove to third-party observers that it has effective
processes for tracking a diamond while it is in possession. Entire national
diamond-trading systems are certified at one time under the Kimberley Process,
and governments, therefore, are relied upon to place pressure on their
industries.
Significantly, the Kimberley agreement,
as initially drafted, called for the process to be reviewed in its third year
-- 2006 -- to determine whether it was working.
Once the Kimberley Process was in place
in January 2003, the diamond industry's mission was clear: press for increased
certification of diamonds, enforce the industry's monitoring of its chain of
custody, and alert the public globally to the successes achieved under the
Kimberley Process. By following this course, it was believed, the industry
could put the conflict diamond issue to rest. For the most part, it has
succeeded; the industry loudly claims that less than 0.2 percent of diamonds
sold are not certified -- and NGOs do not dispute this argument. In many ways,
the issue appeared, until recently, to have been resolved.
The Kimberley Process captured the
imagination of numerous organizations involved in attempts to change industrial
practices in developing countries.
NGOs concerned about the social and
environmental effects of gold mining developed a strategy to persuade the gold
mining and retailing industries to agree to a similar code of conduct. The idea
was to capitalize on the momentum created by the conflict diamond issue,
telling jewelers that a similar situation lurked in the background with gold;
thus, NGOs from around the world began trying to draw parallels between
conflict diamonds and gold mining. The strategy was not entirely successful,
but mining companies and jewelers did get the message that they should start
looking to build codes of conduct for those issues that cannot be resolved
through political action or government regulation.
Some mining companies began work to
build a code of conduct under the auspices of the United Nations. Most mining
companies agreed to stop using the most heavily criticized gold-mining
practices -- including cyanide mining -- under a code developed by the
International Council on Mining and Metals. Similarly, the jewelry industry
also began to call quietly for the mining industry to adopt a code of conduct
relating to gold. Led by Tiffany & Co., jewelers began to work with NGOs
and mining companies to find ways of improving social and environmental aspects
of gold mining.
Prodded by retailers and NGOs, the
jewelry and mining industries currently are developing a certification regime,
working through an organization called the Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices (CRJP) in London. The goal is to hammer
out a workable code of conduct and to track the chain of custody, so that
retailers can guarantee their merchandise does not contribute to human rights
abuses or environmental degradation.
NGOs have had three years in which to
find holes in the Kimberly Process system, and to dream about ways to broaden
the agenda it represents. And now, almost as if on cue, the movie Blood Diamond
is about to be released.
Whether coordinated or not, the movie
will be perfectly timed to give maximum exposure to the criticisms of industry
that NGOs have prepared. Activists will argue that the Kimberley Process is not
strict enough, that it should be policed by governments (rather than third
parties hired by the companies in question) and that its mission should be
broadened to include elements other than simple chain-of-custody requirements
-- including issues like those being addressed by the CRJP. The movie itself,
of course, will not make a case for these arguments. But by bringing attention
to these issues, it will create a forum for representatives of Amnesty
International, Global Witness and other groups to explain what they believe is
-- and is not -- working with the Kimberley Process.
During the late summer and fall, we
expect to see NGOs moving to broaden the certification regimes that influence
what products are sold in jewelry stores. Fights over both the limits of the
Kimberley Process and gold practices will extend into 2007.
The larger, more amorphous issues at
stake, however, are the degree to which major international NGOs are able to
embed their values in commercial activities and relationships, and the degree
to which the groups are seeking expressed power within these certification
regimes. If groups like Global Witness or Earthworks are able to gain influence
within the CRJP, or if the Kimberley Process gives these groups significant
influence in expanding the mission of the certification regime, they will have
crossed a major threshold in the de facto public policy cycle. In short, these
NGOs would be actively embedding liberal Western ideals in global commerce.
That would be an important step.
However, there is a danger of
overreaching. If the NGOs should press beyond this point and demand that
control of the oversight process in the Kimberley Process be taken away from
industry, they could jettison the very influence they now are pursuing. This
has occurred before; NGOs (particularly Amnesty International) threw their
weight behind the U.N. Norms initiative concerning corporate social responsibility,
while ignoring the concerns of industry. The result: The whole project was
discredited before it could take flight.
That leaves the question: Will the NGOs
that are active in mining issues know when to stop pushing -- or be able to
stop if they need to?
For updates
click homepage here