|
 Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe – November 12, 2012: The chair of the Kimberley Process, Ambassador Gillan Milovanovic, delivered a conciliatory speech on the first day of the Zimbabwe Diamond Conference 2012 here in Victoria Falls. The text of the full speech follow below:
- His Excellency, the Honorable Robert Gabriel Mugabe, President of the Republic of Zimbabwe;
- His Excellency, the Honorable Thabo Mbeki, former President of the Republic of South Africa;
- The Honorable Dr. Obert Moses Mpofu, Minister of Mines And Mining Development of the Republic of Zimbabwe;
- The Honorable Thokozile Mathuthu, Governor and Resident Minister of Matabeleland North Province;
- The Honorable Gift Chimanikire, Deputy Minister of Mines and Mining Development of the Republic of Zimbabwe;
- Honorable Ministers, Ambassadors, representatives from industry and civil society, ladies and gentlemen:
Thank you for inviting me, in my capacity as 2012 Chair of the Kimberley Process, to this first-ever Zimbabwe Diamond Conference. I am pleased to be back in Victoria Falls after many years. This is truly one of the world’s scenic wonders, the smoke that roars, stuff of legends. It is also an honor to have the opportunity to address such an impressive gathering of government and industry leaders.
I would like to thank in particular his Excellency, the Zimbabwean Minister of Mines, Dr. Obert Mpofu for organizing this conference and for inviting us all to your home region.
Throughout the U.S. Chairmanship of the Kimberley Process this year I have sought to hold in the forefront of my mind the aspirations of all diamond producers, all cutters and polishers, and all traders and retailers. They all have one thing in common: They all want a prosperous market with steady, predictable demand fueled by an elevated level of consumer confidence and a strong desire for diamonds, this most beautiful and unique of gemstones. I have also kept in mind consumers and their assumptions about the diamonds they buy, because without consumers there is no market.
In the course of the year, I have consistently endeavoured to be inclusive, conducting numerous consultations in Washington and through extensive travel to many of your countries. Let me thank you all for the hospitality you have extended and for your willingness to share your concerns and your suggestions.
As Chair, I have also sought to improve the flow of information, increase transparency, and foster dialogue within the KP and with the outside world. I see my attendance at this conference as an opportunity to continue that work, especially as this Zimbabwe Diamond Conference comes just weeks before the KP Plenary in Washington, D.C.
The Kimberley Process was launched in 2003 in Kimberley, South Africa during the presidency of his Excellency, Thabo Mbeki. It is therefore fitting that South Africa will assume the Chairmanship in 2013 for the tenth anniversary of the KP. Much of our work, as 2012 Chair, has been to prepare the ground for a successful South African Chairmanship. We do not do this out of pure altruism – one year is not nearly enough time to achieve what we seek to achieve, and we anticipate that our South African colleagues will continue initiatives that carry the KP further in the coming decades and sustain its relevance.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Honorable Susan Shabangu, South African Minister of Mineral Resources, for her cooperation and support, as well as to recognize Ambassador Welile Nhlapo, the next KP Chair. It is a great pleasure to note that, under the U.S. Chairmanship, the KP admitted Cameroon as a KPCS participant, and admitted the African Diamond Producers’ Association as an Observer, with Ghana now its President.
Looking at where the KP started, I do not need to tell you that the KP was established by a coalition of visionary government, industry, and civil society leaders who assessed the challenges of the day and crafted a workable solution to those challenges.
Reviewing the founders’ original goals, they created the KP to do two things:
First, to prevent rough diamonds from becoming a source of revenue for rebels seeking to overthrow legitimate governments, and
Second, to prevent a loss of consumer confidence in diamonds owing to their potential association with blood and violence.
In practice, the KP also created a level playing field of huge importance to all producers. A rough diamond from any source – whether from a small and labor-intensive artisanal mine or from a large and mechanized commercial venture – is a legitimate KP diamond so long as its export is accompanied by a valid KP certificate. A rough diamond from any KP participant country, no matter if it comes from one of the poorest or richest corners of the world, is a KP diamond so long as it comes with that same country’s KP certification that it meets the minimum requirements.
It cannot be stressed enough that the KP has been very successful in preventing rough diamonds that fund rebel groups from entering global supply chains. This achievement has in effect diminished the conflicts the KP was concerned with during its establishment, and has contributed to maintaining the reputation of diamonds as symbols of purity, devotion, and enduring love.
The question we must ask ourselves is whether the KP certificate still provides the assurances that consumers want. Are we, as you sit here today, sufficiently confident that we are investing adequately in the future of the Kimberley Process?
With respect, I would submit that we must do more. Consumers are – or will be – looking for more, and that the core definition of “conflict diamond” therefore needs to be updated as our own investment in the KP’s future as a modern and relevant system of certification, just as other industries are doing as we speak.
Now, what are some desirable attributes of an updated definition?
After much consultation with key leaders in government, industry, and civil society, I called for a proposal that focuses on three key elements:
- KP certificates must continue to be focused on ensuring that rough diamonds are free from armed conflict and armed violence; KP certification is not designed to address human rights, financial transparency, economic development, or other important questions though they clearly impact the diamond sector. The KP and its members can and should make further progress on issues like these through the exchange of best practices and voluntary initiatives. KP certificates, however, must continue to be focused on ensuring that rough diamonds are free from conflict.
- Additional certification standards beyond the current definition should apply only to armed conflict and/or armed violence that is demonstrably related to rough diamonds and independently verified. They should not apply to isolated, individual incidents, or to circumstances or situations in which an armed conflict exists but is unrelated to the diamond sector; and
- KP safeguards should be implemented on a site-by-site basis, consistent with systems for other conflict minerals, such as that undertaken within Africa by the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region
The U.S. proposal to change the definition contains these elements. It works exclusively through existing KP processes, notably with respect to assessments and decision-making. From my perspective as KP Chair this is an attractive proposal. I urge you to read it carefully, and indeed to read carefully all the proposals that will come before the KP Plenary for decision. This will enable you to see what is actually included and what is not.
If there are elements in any of the proposals that you feel could be improved, please provide your specific suggestions for modification. The conflict diamond definition proposal like all others is intended to initiate discussion with other participant governments, with industry representatives, and with civil society organizations. It is meant to be a starting point, not a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. We need practical ideas and constructive suggestions in order to have a free and frank discussion that leads to a KP that is prepared for the future.
It may be helpful to go into a little bit of detail about what I have in mind with respect to the process, under a new, updated definition. As I see it, as Chair, in cases where there is concern that a conflict is diamond-related, the goal would be to objectively assess the situation in conjunction with the relevant country. If the conflict does not fit the definition the issue would be closed. If the conflict does fit the definition, the approach would be to assist and resolve, not punish, and the KP would seek to help the country to rectify the situation. Only if these efforts are exhausted and the problem persists would a limitation on the right to issue a KP certificate for rough diamonds originating at the concerned site be considered. The purpose is not to punish or exclude, but first to help a country with a problem to find solutions to fix that problem and only as a last resort move towards limitations on the issuance of KP certificates. All along, we ensure that it is the stakeholders in the diamond sector, from producing countries to manufacturing countries to all elements of industry and civil society, who are focused on making the decisions that affect the KP and the rough diamond supply chain.
Leaving specific proposals aside, the important thing to focus on is that evolution and change are necessary. Sooner or later, institutions that do not have the capacity to change are doomed to irrelevance and businesses that fail to keep pace with the market will suffer as a result.
Neither the Kimberley Process nor the diamond sector as whole can afford to be relegated to irrelevance. Too much is at stake.
Millions of people – from artisanal miners and heavy equipment operators or mine managers, to cutters and polishers to retailers – rely on the diamond trade for their livelihoods. Moreover, basic, government-provided infrastructure and services like health, education, and agricultural extension programs in many producing countries rely in part on diamond revenues.
The KP has the expertise and capacity to continue to play a positive role in the sector by preserving the reputation of diamonds and ensuring this trade, on which so many people depend, is not fueling armed conflict or violence.
Of course needed evolution in the diamond sector will not come solely through definitions. There is also a need to more directly and consistently invest in the miners and mining communities themselves. KP certification should not be conditioned on development issues. But the subject of integrating development into the KP deserves to be highlighted, because it affects those workers within the diamond sector who are the most vulnerable, and because it can make a broader, lasting contribution. In this context, I would like to make special mention of an Angola-led initiative that I sincerely hope attracts consensus and is adopted at the Plenary later this month.
In the first half of our Chairmanship, we worked with the World Bank, the Diamond Development Initiative, and the U.S. Agency for International Development to sponsor the first-ever KP-focused Development Conference. Reflecting the importance of the topic, the conference attracted a very impressive number of African KP delegates, as well as experts from other sectors and regions. It focused valuable attention on the question of how to better ensure that producers, whether industrial or artisanal, benefit more from the precious diamond resource.
Partly as an outgrowth of that conference, the KP’s Working Group on Artisanal and Alluvial Production, ably led by Angola, is completing work on a wide-ranging document that would update the KP’s 2005 “Moscow Declaration,” and recommit the KP to a number of policy goals, ranging from improved artisanal miner registration systems to updated approaches to land tenure and revenue transparency.
The concept behind the Angolan proposal is to use the power of the KP to help draw artisanal mining communities into the formal sector by providing them with the promise of sustainable economic development, making them less vulnerable to exploitation and preventing conflict. I hope all of your governments will support Angola’s vision, and I want to extend my sincere thanks to his Excellency, the Angolan Minister of Mines and the Angolan Chair of the KP Working Group on Artisanal and Alluvial Production, Mr. Paulo M’vika, for this work.
Today we are gathered in Victoria Falls. The invitational materials for this conference noted that “Zimbabwe could hold the future of the diamond industry.” This conference is indeed about looking forward. Accordingly I will end by expressing my hope that we can come together here to give the KP the same bright future you hope to launch for Zimbabwe this week. Sustained communication and information sharing, systematic transparency, and open dialogue with all stakeholders are key elements of success, whether we speak of Zimbabwe and its aspirations for the future or of the Kimberley Process and its evolution to meet the challenges of its second decade and beyond.
The KP’s most recent monitoring report on mining in the Marange region notes positive trends with respect to the mining capabilities of the new ventures, state-of-the-art security systems, local civil society organizations and the press obtaining access to Marange and a continuing decline in the number of security incidents related to artisanal miners operating in the tenure areas. This is to be commended, and it is our hope, as Chair, that this trend will continue.
Let me leave you with one thought. It is what has driven my enthusiasm for the Kimberley Process and given me a strong sense of purpose since I took up my position as KP Chair: We have a collective responsibility to the millions of workers and their families who depend on diamonds for their livelihoods. If we work together we can ensure that the Kimberley Process evolves to remain current and provides in years to come the same level playing field for the rough diamonds of all its members that has been so beneficial in its first decade.
I thank you for your attention and I wish you every success.
|
