I thank the Chairman for the invitation and for the privilege of being allowed to speak to members this afternoon about a subject that is very dear to my organisation and which is also of great interest of the Irish Government. As the Chairman said, we have received support from Irish Aid for several years. Our relationship with the Government of Ireland dates back many years.
My organisation began its work in the area of conflict in national resources in Africa in 1998, at which time we sought to understand the conflict in Sierra Leone and make a contribution towards addressing it. Members will remember that the war in Sierra Leone dragged on for some ten years. It was similar in many ways to the war in neighbouring Liberia and the wars in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Angola. These four wars, which one could call rebel wars or civil wars, were fuelled by the diamond trade. They represented a major humanitarian disaster throughout Africa in the 1990s.
Our work, research and advocacy regarding Sierra Leone came to a head in 2000. Similar efforts were being made by others, including the United Nations and other NGOs. These efforts came together in 2000 when South Africa, which has a direct political and commercial interest in this issue, invited stakeholders to meet in Kimberley. This was the beginning of the Kimberley process, which continues today. This multi-stakeholder initiative is to control the diamond trade and ensure it does not fuel conflict. Our contact with Irish Aid stems from our discussions over Sierra Leone, on which we worked a great deal in the early 2000s when Ireland was renewing or refreshing its aid programme for that country.
I will make some remarks on the Kimberley process, particularly making reference to Zimbabwe. One needs to understand the successes and weaknesses of the Kimberley process to understand the difficulties associated with its handling of the Zimbabwe case today. The Kimberley process came into effect in January 2003 and has succeeded broadly in regulating the diamond trade. Prior to that date, the trade was unregulated, often with very limited paperwork. Often the words "origin" and "provenance" were confused, such that one could have been importing diamonds from Switzerland when in fact they were not produced there.
The Kimberley process is a mechanism to determine and guarantee the origin of diamonds. It has succeeded in this regard throughout the world. Some 49 countries, including EU members, are now signed up to the process. It embraces all the major diamond importing and producing countries. It has succeeded in reducing to almost zero the incidence of conflict related to the diamond trade. One could say 99% or more of the diamonds produced and marketed worldwide are conflict free. There is still a considerable amount of diamond smuggling, but this constitutes a relatively small part of the trade. Whether the proportion is 5% or 10%, it is difficult to say. However, in a sense that is the nature of the product in that it is very easy to transport diamonds as they are very small and highly valuable. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the Kimberley process has had a major impact on the diamond industry.
As for some of the Kimberley process's spin-offs, it has, for example, helped in the creation of something called the diamond development initiative, which is an initiative to help focus attention on the poorest in the diamond trade, namely, the artisanal diggers or those who dig, in some countries. One must remember that the Kimberley process is directed towards trying to regulate the origin of diamonds to ensure where they come from. It does not deal with issues of labour conditions, labour rights or environmental issues. However, by the very nature of its existence, it has brought attention to these issues with which other initiatives are now dealing. This has been a highly positive secondary contribution. Third, I mention its influence in respect of other minerals. If one considers the Great Lakes region of Africa, minerals such as cassiterite, coltan and gold continue to fuel conflict to this day. Rebel groups, such as the former Interahamwe from Rwanda known as the Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda, FDLR, in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC, survive by mining cassiterite and by selling it to become tin. The aforementioned minerals are highly important in the communications technologies and are to be found in our cell telephones and computers. There still is conflict in eastern DRC caused by these minerals and the countries of the region, which have come together in a grouping called the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, ICGLR, have, in the spirit of the Kimberley process, created something called a regional mechanism for minerals for these high-value minerals and this will be implemented quite soon. As we are collaborating with the authorities in central Africa because of our experience in the Kimberley process, I mention this as an important impact.
Some major challenges are faced by the Kimberley process today and I mentioned that smuggling continues. The Kimberley process structure is a little unusual when compared with other structures in that the head of the Kimberley process, which normally is a country, changes from year to year. This year, Israel is at the head of the Kimberley process and it has brought a new rigour into the management of the Kimberley process. In particular, it is paying attention to the issue of enforcement. Consequently, not only are representatives from the natural resources ministries of different countries meeting in the Kimberley process but they are bringing together representatives from the enforcement side, including customs and the police. This is a positive response to the continuing problem of smuggling.
The Kimberley process also has structural problems. It does not have a secretariat and consequently is managed by a figurehead chairmanship for a rotating one-year term and by committees that are created. Perhaps the most important such committee is the committee on monitoring how the Kimberley process is implemented, which is chaired by the European Union each year and this has not changed. The European Union monitors how the Kimberley process is implemented. At present, the committee on statistics is chaired by the United States of America and there are other committees as well.
It will be important for the Kimberley process to develop a secretariat to make its work more professional and more thorough and I will give one example. As part of the monitoring of the Kimberley process, review visits are made to participating countries at least every three or four years. Those reviews are short visits, lasting for four or five days, carried out by a team made up of governmental, non-governmental and industry representatives. However, one cannot review a country's operations, particularly when the matter is complicated, such as in the case of Zimbabwe and other countries, within a three or four-day visit. Even though monitoring of statistics and trade figures is ongoing, more than that is needed and a secretariat with an independent monitoring system would go some way towards making the Kimberley process more professional in how it operates. However, I will return to some of these issues presently.
Moving on to Zimbabwe, some countries within the Kimberley process pose greater challenges from time to time. Those that have experienced conflict in the past are continually faced by the challenges of internal controls. How does one control an artisanal industry, such as the diamond industry, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? It is very difficult. As members are aware, the Government of the DRC has its own challenges and it has some difficulty in monitoring what happens in rural areas where diamonds are exploited artisanally. In the case of Zimbabwe, there are different challenges. The Zimbabwean diamond industry is fairly recent. There are three main areas of diamond production at two of which, namely, Murowa and River Ranch, mining is industrial. In other words, companies at those sites mine industrially with equipment. The other main area is more artisanal, which is to say that the diamonds are found spread out near the surface and in 2006, a new diamond mining area was found in the Marange area that led to a diamond rush of panners and diggers going to this artisanal mining area.
The response of the authorities in Zimbabwe to this was quite shocking, in that they understood the significance of this find and, given the economic and political realities in Zimbabwe, the authorities took a decision to expel the diamond panners and diggers from the region. Moreover, they did so in a highly violent way whereby in 2008, the military moved in and cleared the diamond diggers from this area and it is alleged that approximately 200 people were killed during that process. Human Rights Watch has drawn up a highly detailed report on this matter. Others, including ourselves, also have drawn up reports and members recently have been given a copy of a report based on the work of a researcher from our office on the ground in eastern Zimbabwe, who spoke to people who have suffered as a result of the actions in 2008.
However, these actions still continue, albeit at a less violent level. Human rights violations of people continue to take place in the area, including panners who continue to try to earn a living, given the desperate conditions in Zimbabwe at present. Smuggling continues from this area. The Zimbabwean authorities cannot and do not control the diamonds coming from this area and smuggling continues across the border into Mozambique. There are approximately 30 buying houses in the border town of Manica on the Mozambiquean side of the border. The authorities in Zimbabwe do not recognise the relevance of this and will not accept that human rights violations occurred in 2008 and continue to occur. I refer to an internal document produced by the military in Zimbabwe, which has become quite commonly available in the last month or so and which is the subject of some dispute, having led to the arrest of a human rights activist in Zimbabwe. While I will mention the latter development in a moment, the document confirms that human rights violations continue there.
These different reasons, namely, the military control of the area from which diamonds come, the continuing smuggling and the human rights violations, are matters that are central core elements of the Kimberley process's responsibility. We have argued that Zimbabwe should be expelled from the Kimberley process until these matters are dealt with adequately. However, it is clear there are differing opinions within the Kimberley process. It is an organisation that works by consensus and not by vote and consequently there is inaction until a broad consensus is reached, if not complete agreement with all members. However, the situation in Zimbabwe is boiling for different reasons. Its authorities are trying hard to gain the Kimberley process's approval to export diamonds from the new area. Dealing with the situation is difficult for the process, as governance in Zimbabwe is problematic, in that internal interests close to the Government want the diamonds exported for personal reasons, namely, their direct influence in the diamond trade. This situation is unusual. Countries that are politically and economically close to Zimbabwe also want diamonds exported. The political and commercial interests involved comprise one of the difficulties facing the Kimberley process. This point reverts to my original argument that the process must be strengthened and made more professional instead of dependent on the input of governments and the diamond sector.
It is important that the situation in Zimbabwe be handled clearly, firmly and fairly because of the country's needs and those of the Kimberley process. Events could quickly spin out of control in Zimbabwe. Its President is growing old and he will leave us one of these days. There is a struggle for power and the Zimbabwean authorities have few resources to hold elections and to do the kinds of thing governments like to do. The key resource the authorities would like to control and use for collective and personal benefit are the diamonds. Therefore, it is important that the matter be managed directly. The Kimberley process must either deal with it fairly or be diminished, leaving it unable to deal well with such matters in future.
I will mention one or two issues in respect of which Ireland can play a role. Ireland is a member of the EU and the latter, rather than individual countries, has a voice in the Kimberley process. Via the EU, Ireland should request that the process be strengthened. Zimbabwe must be obliged to meet its minimum requirements under the process. If judged to be non-compliant or unwilling to meet those requirements, it should be expelled and endure the consequences. This test case will make the process work and require its component parts throughout the world to implement measures that prevent illegally exported diamonds entering the market.
As the EU is chairing the working group on monitoring, one sometimes feels it is taking a prudent role and trying to be objective so that dialogue continues. However, it has a responsibility to take a lead independently of its position.
Zimbabwe has been a test case for the Kimberley process, which must strengthen itself and undertake reforms. They have been discussed on and off for several years. Prior to the recent six-monthly meeting in Tel Aviv, Partnership Africa Canada produced a document, entitled "Paddles for Kimberley", which is being made available to the committee. In it, we proposed an agenda for reform, which was discussed at a special workshop prior to the Tel Aviv inter-sessional in June. Governments, the industry and civil society held a positive discussion on the way forward in terms of review visits, transparency, improving decision making, which can be ineffective because it is consensual, and a secretariat to make the process more professional. We hope that, after such a meeting and with Israel in the chair, there can be some forward movement. Ireland can encourage the EU to take a greater leadership role on these questions.
A particular issue on which the process should move forward is that of affording protection to civil society, which is one of its pillars. In Zimbabwe, a leading human rights activist working in the field of conflict relating to the diamond trade was arrested recently for giving information to the Kimberley process monitor. We cannot discuss many details of that arrest, but that he was targeted for arrest and, prior to that, harassment is serious. Irrespective of the Zimbabwe case, this is the type of matter on which the process should develop a protocol. Through the EU, Ireland could argue for that development.
Moving beyond the Kimberley process, I point out the importance of natural resources to Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo and many other countries in Africa in terms of their development, conflicts and human rights. I mentioned the international conference on development in the Great Lakes region and the four minerals targeted. The Kimberley process focuses on diamonds and members will be aware of other problems, such as oil in the Niger delta. Unfortunately, natural resources are often accompanied by conflict. What is needed is good governance in the natural resources sector. Members will be aware of the international extractive industry transparency initiative, but there is also a parallel civil society movement called Publish What You Pay. What these call for is specific, but the broader areas are those of business and human rights.
The issue of corporate social responsibility needs greater attention from all interested parties. I am unaware of the detailed work undertaken in Ireland at Government, civil society and industrial levels, but I encourage members to do more. Ireland has a great history in promoting peace throughout the world via the UN and would be well positioned to play a role in multilateral initiatives, even though its extractive industries are small compared with those of some other countries, such as Canada, a case I obviously know well. This matter will have increasing importance and the question of human rights as they relate to the natural resources of Zimbabwe and so on, which is obviously one of the committee's concerns, makes a strong argument for further Irish work on the matter.