Responsible Jewelry and the Search for Credibility
By Jesse Finfrock
Jesse Finfrock is Cofounder of The Clarity Project. The Clarity Project is a fair jewelry social enterprise dedicated to improving the quality of life for miners and their communities. ~ Marc Choyt, Publisher
(Photo Courtesy of Alliance for Responsible Mining, Guatemala.)
In late January, Martin Rapaport wrote that “blood diamonds from Marange, Zimbabwe, have been issued Kimberley Process (KP) certificates and imported into the cutting centers, where they were cut and polished and then sold to dealers, jewelry manufacturers and retailers.” He estimated that “tens of thousands of carats of blood diamonds are now in dealers’ inventories and jewelers’ showcases — and are being actively sold to consumers.” [Read more about Rapaport’s criticisms.]
With the failure of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) and the “misguided leadership” of the World Diamond Council, as evidenced by the ongoing abuses in Zimbabwe’s diamond fields, pressure is building for the jewelry industry to become more transparent, accountable, and fair.
At last year’s Fair Trade Diamond Conference in Las Vegas, led by Rapaport, discussion of competing certification systems was rigorous. At one table sat a representative from the Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC); at another sat a representative from the Alliance for Responsible Mining (ARM). Both organizations were establishing vital new standards for socially responsible — or in ARM’s case Fair Trade — gems and precious metals. But their divergent approaches highlight the importance of involving local stakeholders in creating standards that are truly effective and credible.
RJC, a participant in the United Nations Global Compact initiative, implemented its new certification system last December after seeking input from civil society mining organizations that promote social and environmental justice. RJC’s standards, which focus on large-scale mining operations, require sensible practices like protecting ecosystem biodiversity and considering “the interests and development aspirations of affected communities.”
Yet during the consultation period last fall, several leading NGOs declined to endorse RJC’s process and operation, describing it as “industry-led and industry-governed.” In a disapproving letter to RJC, several civil society organizations — including Earthworks, OxFam, Global Witness, and CAFOD — cited such critical issues as the lack of independent, third-party certification, and the absence of local and community stakeholder involvement. These organizations further cautioned that RJC proposed standards omit “key requirements for more responsible mining,” notably:
• Respect for the right of free, prior, and informed consent for indigenous peoples (per ILO 169);
• Community consent for resettlement;
• No-go areas for biodiversity conservation;
• Protection of natural water bodies from tailings disposal.
Criticisms persist since the official launch of RJC’s standards. In December, Earthworks and its partners reiterated their concerns, further arguing that RJC standards “would let companies operate mines in conflict zones and in most protected areas.” Interested jewelers should stay tuned, as the impact of RJC’s standards on the industry will become more apparent throughout the year.
ARM offers a different approach than RJC. Working with artisanal and small-scale mining operations, ARM, together with Fairtrade Labelling Organization International (FLO), has recently completed the first Fair Trade standards for gold, after consulting with various stakeholders including the public at large. ARM was inspired by the decade-long work of Oro Verde, a small ecologically-oriented gold mine in Colombia whose members actually helped form ARM. Indeed, ARM has integrated small-scale miners fully into the process, including as board members and technical advisers.
ARM’s intimate relationship with the local miners and focus on biodiversity leads to more comprehensive standards. For instance, ARM standards firmly adhere to ILO 169 and require “respect for local cultural practices in order to reach agreements with the local traditional authority and community.” ARM’s standards underwent three rounds of public consultation, included face-to-face workshops, and learning sessions at local and global levels. Furthermore, unlike RJC, ARM is taking a chain-of-custody approach to certification, which means that ARM and FLO will be able to track the gold from mine to market.
The result, as Sonya Maldar, a policy analyst at CAFOD and signatory to the RJC letter, explained, is a more legitimate and effective certification system:
“Consumers [of ARM/FLO certified Fair Trade gold] will be able to trust that the artisanal and small-scale miners were not left out of the process. ARM works directly with small-scale miners to help them organize and set up projects, and FLO is ensuring that the miners receive a premium for their product.”
While the RJC and ARM are not entirely comparable (RJC works with large-scale mines and ARM works with small-scale mines), their approaches can certainly be contrasted. Engaging the local populations, as ARM does, adds significant credibility and legitimacy to their standards — and it’s not going unnoticed. Other large-scale mining certification schemes are following ARM’s lead. A direct RJC competitor, the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA), has taken a rigorous multi-stakeholder approach in establishing its standards and has earned the support of many of the same NGOs that declined to endorse RJC.
For jewelry and mining companies truly serious about maintaining credibility with consumers, it is critical that their certification standards involve miners at the local level from the very beginning. As the failures of the Kimberley Process demonstrate, credibility can no longer be fabricated — it must be earned.
You can email Jesse, or follow The Clarity Project on Twitter.
