TEL AVIV--De Beers Group said it would support stricter measures
to keep conflict-tainted diamonds off the market, amid growing
criticism of the global body tasked with stopping the trade in
illicit stones.
Moves to more tightly monitor supply chains would be "fully"
backed by De Beers, the world's biggest diamond producer and a key
signatory of the Kimberly Process certification program, said Chief
Executive Philippe Mellier.
"If there were more strict criteria we would be fully behind it
because we want to protect the pipeline," said Mr. Mellier, who was
referring to the global supply of rough, uncut diamonds rather than
De Beers' own inventory.
De Beers, a unit of London-listed mining giant Anglo American
PLC (AAL.LN), accounts for about 40% of the world's rough diamond
output.
Along with rights groups and governments, De Beers was one of
the architects of the Kimberley Process, a United Nations-backed
program charged with stopping the trade in so-called blood
diamonds.
However, some campaigners now say the body relies on
self-regulation and defines conflict too narrowly, failing to take
account of violence or human-rights violations by governments or
groups supervising mining.
Global Witness, a non-governmental organization that helped
establish the Kimberly Process, left the scheme in 2011, saying it
is outdated because it doesn't address issues of human-rights
violations by governments in diamond-producing countries.
Mr. Mellier pushed back against critics that argue the Kimberley
Process no longer works, saying that it was an evolving system that
had made a significant difference during the ten years of its
existence, even if it could be improved.
"It's a huge success," said Mr. Mellier said. "For any process
you always have people who say it could be tougher, better, and it
could be better. But it's a huge achievement."
When the Kimberly Process was set up in 2003, about 15% of
diamonds on the market were defined as conflict stones but that
number has now fallen to around 1% of total world supply, said Mr.
Mellier.
But despite early successes, a public rift has opened between
some members of the Kimberly Process, which include representatives
from the diamond business, governments from 80 countries, and
non-government organizations.
The U.S. in May called for conflict diamonds to be more widely
defined, saying that a less narrow designation could have allowed
earlier intervention and saved lives in the Central African
Republic, where rebels toppled the government in March. The
poverty-stricken nation was eventually suspended from the Kimberley
Process last month due to suspicions that the rebels, now in power,
continued to be partly funded by the local diamond trade.
Other Kimberly Process participants have backed away from
tighter controls.
Some African member countries have said stricter regulation
could infringe on their sovereignty, while one of the original
campaigners who helped establish the Kimberly Process argued that
widening the definition of conflict minerals risks unwinding years
of hard work.
"While the efforts of the NGOs and some governments are to be
commended to redefine the definition of what are conflict diamonds
in order to include diamonds that fund repressive regimes or are
mined in areas where atrocities have been committed, it really does
fall outside the purview of the Kimberley Process," said Alex
Yearsley, director of consultancy firm Stanley Global Services.
"It is the responsibility of the diamond trade and importing
governments to firstly not buy these diamonds but also not import
them. Destroying the Kimberley Process in search of perfection is
naive and they will regret it," said Mr. Yearsley.
--Francesca Freeman in London contributed to this report
Write to Sara Toth Stub at realtimedesklondon@dowjones.com
Subscribe to WSJ: http://online.wsj.com?mod=djnwires