The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, established in 2003, was born from the “Zaire Diamond Crisis” of the early 1990s, when conflict diamonds originating from the Second Congo War fueled instability and violence. The scheme’s initial success lay in its ability to verify the origin of rough diamonds, issuing certificates to distinguish legitimate supply chains from those financing armed conflict. However, recent developments, particularly Russia’s consistent block votes at Plenaries, have severely hampered the process’s ability to adapt to contemporary threats. As of December 2025, the fundamental issue remains unresolved: Russia’s refusal to address the role of its diamond exports in funding the war in Ukraine.
According to a report released by the International Crisis Group in November 2025, “Russia’s blockade isn’t simply about negotiating process; it’s a calculated move to undermine the Kimberley Process’s credibility and to demonstrate the limits of international pressure. The deliberate ambiguity regarding the origin of rough diamonds from Russia serves as a shield against scrutiny and a tool to maintain access to global markets.” Dr. Emily Carter, a specialist in conflict diamond tracing at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, noted, “The core problem is that the ‘conflict diamond’ definition has become overly reliant on a state-centric view. It’s essentially a weaponized tool employed when geopolitical interests are at stake.”
The Plenary’s agenda focused on revising the definition of conflict diamonds, aiming to incorporate a broader range of actors beyond solely state-sponsored entities. Proposals included expanding the criteria to include instances of diamond revenues being used to fund illicit activities, regardless of the origin of the diamonds. However, this attempt to broaden the scope was repeatedly blocked by Russia, who argues that the definition should remain focused on state-sponsored conflict. “The debate is becoming less about identifying conflict diamonds and more about establishing who gets to define ‘conflict’,” argued former Kimberley Process executive secretary, Mr. Jean-Pierre Dubois, in an interview with Foreign Policy Watchdog. “The current impasse demonstrates the limitations of a process fundamentally designed to address a specific set of circumstances.”
Data from the Gemological Institute of America’s (GIA) Trace Registry, which tracks diamond provenance, reveals a growing demand for robust traceability systems. In Q3 2025, the number of diamonds registered in the system increased by 35% compared to the same period in 2024, suggesting that businesses and consumers are prioritizing supply chain transparency. However, the lack of effective enforcement mechanisms, compounded by Russia’s obstruction, undermines the system’s ability to capitalize on this demand. The Plenary did reach a consensus on expanding the registry, but the lack of a legally binding mechanism to compel states to participate was a significant setback.
Short-term (next six months), the stalemate is likely to persist. Russia will continue to leverage its veto power, creating further delays and preventing any significant reforms. The Plenary is expected to revisit the issue in March 2026, but with no indication of a change in Russia’s stance, a substantial breakthrough is improbable. Long-term (5-10 years), the future of the Kimberley Process hinges on several factors. A complete restructuring of the system is necessary, one that incorporates a more nuanced understanding of illicit financing, encompassing non-state actors and complex financial networks. Technological advancements, such as blockchain-based traceability solutions, could potentially offer a more effective means of tracking diamond flows. However, the willingness of key stakeholders—particularly Russia—to cooperate remains the single greatest impediment.
The debate surrounding the Kimberley Process transcends the diamond industry, representing a broader struggle for accountability in global supply chains. The continued blockage of meaningful reforms serves as a stark reminder of the limitations of international cooperation when confronted with deliberate political obstruction. The core challenge now lies in whether the international community can forge a new consensus—one that prioritizes ethical trade, human security, and ultimately, a world where the beauty of a diamond doesn’t mask the ugliness of conflict. The ability to shift the conversation from process to substance is paramount.