Diamonds are often associated with love, beauty and celebration. But in the 1990s, diamonds also became associated with something much darker: war, violence and the financing of armed groups in Africa.
The international response to this problem eventually led to the creation of the Kimberley Process, a global system designed to prevent so-called conflict diamonds from entering the legitimate international diamond trade.
But what exactly happened, and why did the world feel the need to create the Kimberley Process?
What are “conflict diamonds”?
Conflict diamonds—also called blood diamonds—are rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance armed conflict against legitimate governments.
The term became particularly associated with devastating conflicts in countries including Sierra Leone, Angola and Liberia during the 1990s.
Diamonds were valuable because they were relatively easy to extract, transport and sell. Armed groups could take control of diamond-producing areas, force people to mine or work in the areas, and then sell the diamonds through illicit networks.
The money generated could then be used to purchase weapons and sustain armed conflicts.
The result was devastating for ordinary people.
What happened in Sierra Leone?
One of the most notorious examples was the civil war in Sierra Leone, which began in 1991.
The Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebel movement seized diamond-producing areas and used the proceeds from diamonds to help finance its war effort.
The conflict became infamous for extreme violence against civilians, including killings, displacement and mutilation.
The diamond trade became an international issue because diamonds mined in conflict areas could eventually enter the global market, where consumers might unknowingly purchase them.
The United Nations later described the illicit trade in conflict diamonds as contributing to armed conflicts and called for measures to break the connection between diamonds and violence.
Angola faced a similar problem
Sierra Leone was not the only country affected.
In Angola, the rebel movement UNITA generated significant revenue from diamond-producing areas during the country’s long-running civil war.
The United Nations introduced sanctions intended to prevent UNITA from benefiting from the international diamond trade.
The problem was that diamonds could be moved across borders and sold through international markets, making it difficult to determine where some rough diamonds had actually originated.
This demonstrated that individual countries acting alone could not completely solve the problem.
There needed to be an international system.
The diamond industry’s reputation was also at risk
There was another major concern.
The vast majority of diamonds being legitimately mined and traded were not conflict diamonds. Yet the association between diamonds and brutal conflicts threatened the reputation of the entire industry.
Governments, diamond-producing countries, businesses and civil society organisations therefore had a shared interest in finding a solution.
The United Nations noted that legitimate diamond trading was economically important to many producing and developing countries.
The challenge was essentially:
How do you allow legitimate diamond trading to continue while preventing diamonds that finance armed conflict from entering the market?
The meeting that started the Kimberley Process
In May 2000, representatives from Southern African diamond-producing countries met in Kimberley, South Africa.
Their objective was to find a way to stop the trade in conflict diamonds and protect the legitimate diamond industry.
This meeting became the beginning of what is now known as the Kimberley Process.
The initiative was unusual because it brought together three important groups:
- Governments
- The international diamond industry
- Civil society organisations
Together, they worked on developing an international system for tracking and controlling the trade in rough diamonds.
The United Nations gets involved
The issue quickly moved onto the international stage.
In December 2000, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 55/56, supporting efforts to develop a workable international certification system for rough diamonds.
The resolution called for countries to work toward a system based on national controls and internationally agreed minimum standards.
The idea was straightforward:
If countries could control their rough-diamond imports and exports, it would become much harder for conflict diamonds to enter legitimate international trade.
Negotiations continued for almost two years.
The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme
In November 2002, representatives agreed on the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) at a meeting in Interlaken, Switzerland. Thirty-seven countries initially signed the agreement.
The scheme officially came into force on 1 January 2003.
Its basic objective was to prevent conflict diamonds from entering the legitimate international market.
How does it work?
The Kimberley Process focuses specifically on rough diamonds.
Under the system, participating countries are expected to establish internal controls over rough-diamond production and trade.
When rough diamonds are exported, they must be accompanied by a Kimberley Process Certificate confirming that the shipment complies with the scheme.
Shipments must also be placed in tamper-resistant or sealed packaging.
Participating countries also agree to trade rough diamonds only within the Kimberley Process framework and not to trade with non-participants.
In simple terms, the system attempts to create a chain of accountability:
Mine → Exporter → Certificate → Importer → Legitimate diamond market
The objective is to make it much harder for diamonds financing rebel movements to enter that chain.
Why is it called the Kimberley Process?
The name comes from Kimberley, South Africa, where the initial meeting of Southern African diamond-producing countries took place in May 2000.
So although the system became an international initiative involving many countries, its name reflects the place where the process began.
Did it solve the problem?
The Kimberley Process has played an important role in making the international rough-diamond trade more transparent and in creating a global framework specifically aimed at conflict diamonds.
The United Nations has repeatedly supported the initiative and has credited international efforts, including the Kimberley Process, with helping to prevent conflict diamonds from entering the mainstream market.
But the system is not perfect.
One important criticism is that the Kimberley Process definition of a conflict diamond is relatively narrow. It focuses primarily on rough diamonds used by rebel movements to finance conflict against legitimate governments.
That means a diamond can potentially comply with Kimberley Process requirements while other ethical concerns—such as labour conditions, environmental damage or human-rights abuses outside the scheme’s definition—remain unresolved.
This is why responsible jewellery companies may go beyond simply asking whether a diamond has Kimberley Process certification.
Why the Kimberley Process still matters
The story of the Kimberley Process is ultimately about what happens when a valuable natural resource becomes connected to violence.
The diamond itself is not the problem.
The problem is how the diamond is mined, controlled, traded and financed.
The conflicts in countries such as Sierra Leone and Angola demonstrated that an international luxury market could become connected to devastating human suffering thousands of kilometres away.
The Kimberley Process was created to break that connection.
And today, when consumers ask jewellery companies where their diamonds come from and whether they are responsibly sourced, they are asking a question that emerged from this painful history.
From “blood diamonds” to responsible sourcing
The Kimberley Process changed the conversation around diamonds.
It showed that consumers, governments, businesses and civil society could no longer simply ask:
“Is this diamond beautiful?”
They also had to ask:
“Where did it come from?”
“Who benefited from it?”
“Was anyone harmed in obtaining it?”
And increasingly:
“Can we prove that this diamond was responsibly sourced?”
That evolution is particularly important for modern jewellery brands seeking to build trust with consumers.
For businesses such as SueShimmers, where responsible sourcing is part of the conversation, understanding the history of the Kimberley Process provides important context for why questions about the origin and journey of a diamond matter.
