Oy, the Ever CENsational Sarah
July 02, 09Our readers don’t need an introduction to Sarah Winterton, the political consultant and lobbyist of the London-based The Communications Group (TCG). It was Ms. Winterton who, while being (indirectly) mostly paid and instructed by De Beers, created the so-called “CIBJO Europe,” which was the front behind which several natural diamond producers, together with the International Diamond Council, entered into the so-called Workshop Agreement 47 with CEN, the European Committee for Standardization. Through this CEN Workshop Agreement 47 (CWA 47), an agreement was reached on the allowed terminology for marketing gem-quality lab made diamonds. As the issue of diamond nomenclature had been raised decades ago by CIBJO, it was already a well-known name to CEN.
When we first commented on the CWA 47, we had all the sympathy for the objectives of the diamond producers. However, we editorially objected to the cloud of secrecy surrounding the CWA 47 process, its exclusiveness, and the fact that some of the most important decisions in the diamond industry were being taken without the awareness – let alone participation – of the rank and file of the industry. Ms. Winterton had received specific instructions from her handlers at De Beers not to invite synthetic producers.
At our editorial urging, two synthetics producers, who learned about CWA 47 through my columns, joined the final meeting of the CWA 47 way back in November 2008, where the final nomenclature language was drafted. A third synthetic producer declined to attend, explaining that joining an already stacked deck at the last moment for one meeting wouldn’t en
A few months after the Workshop’s work was completed, the “real” CIBJO, represented by the rather colorful Dr. Gaetano Cavalieri, woke up and realized that something had gone fundamentally wrong in the process. CIBJO then formerly asked CEN to postpone the final publication of the Workshop’s conclusions and have a chance to organize another meeting so that obvious faults could be corrected. As of press time, CIBJO is still in discussions with CEN on how to resolve the issue. In the meantime, CIBJO has terminated any contract it had with Ms. Winterton regarding the “fronting” of its name, which makes no difference since she was never taking instructions from CIBJO to begin with – she was only using the CIBJO name.
New Letterhead, New Process?
Recently, many of our readers received a letter from Ms. Winterton that boasts a new letterhead, which we cite here in full: “CEN Workshop Agreement 47: ‘Consumer confidence and nomenclature in the diamond industry’.” This new letterhead also has an email address: info@cwa47.org. Ms. Winterton’s quite interesting letter provides an update “on the recently completed CEN Workshop Agreement 47 (CWA 47) on diamond nomenclature and consumer confidence.” The letter also issues an invitation “to attend the first meeting of a cross-industry working group that is being est
She doesn’t give up. The producers’ agenda is far from completed. What Ms. Winterton really wants is to achieve harmonization guid
CEN Protests Abuse of Name
But the first order of business should be honest disclosure of what this new so-called CWA 47 working group is all
Just like the “CIBJO Europe” front had, in fact, little or nothing to do with CIBJO and was financed by interested third parties, the same goes for CEN and this extended process: the name CEN and the temporary role that was Ms. Winterton’s, as the chairwoman of the CEN Workshop Agreement 47, is over. It is clear who is financing the resumption of these CWA 47 activities – De Beers and friends – but that isn’t apparent from the invitation and related documents for the planned July 22 meeting in London. .
John Ketchell, CEN’s Director of Innovation and Business Development, has formally demanded that the organizers of the upcoming London meeting cease to use the very misleading title “CEN Workshop Agreement 47 Consumer Confidence Commission.” It has nothing to do with CEN. Ketchell is obviously upset by what he calls “the risk of some person thinking that this is a CEN activity.” He has asked to choose an alternative title for the July 22 meeting – something that has not yet happened.
CEN also insists that all future written materials published by CWA 47 make an explicit statement that the group is not a CEN group as such. This brings us back to Ms. Winterton. She and her organizers first used the CIBJO name to put together the first CWA 47, and after being disowned by CIBJO, she and her organizers are now using the CEN connotation. History repeats itself – she is now been disowned by CEN as well.
But, thank goodness, De Beers is un
According to De Beers, “Sarah Winterton is the duly elected and appointed chair of the CEN workshop.” That’s not disputed. But she certainly has lost the trust of some of the stakeholders involved and the words “duly elected” are truly inappropriate. And her role at CEN is over. Says De Beers, “Following the successful completion of the CEN workshop agreement the proposed meeting is to consider matters arising and the consequences for nomenclature within the industry.”
Though the process at CEN has been completed, this doesn’t mean that CEN, which has been advised of CIBJO’s disagreement with the process leading to the CWA 47, is not willing to consider changes. It has suggested two ways of doing so: One is to reconvene a new Workshop with a different business plan (and funding) to produce and amend the version of the already agreed nomenclature. CEN has also offered a “lightweight process” under which CEN would consult electronically with all the previously registered Workshop participants on a revised text already prepared by stakeholders. This second option is not practical because there is clearly no consensus on the text.
An Invitation with an Unclear Purpose
None of the invitations for the July 22 London meeting – to which we have also been invited – give any indication whether it is Ms. Winterton’s purpose to restart the entire process and make it more inclusive, or whether there is an entirely different agenda. It is also not clear if a surgical “bypass CIBJO” road is being explored. As much as we support a continuation of an all-inclusive process, it certainly is not a good start when the very “fronting” for the next meeting has already become a contentious issue in itself.
This goes far beyond letterheads or e-mail addresses. If the tensions can be diffused and the “new group” finds a clear, well defined, honest identity – it may actually have a chance to succeed. We can only wish it all the best.
Footnote: A few hours after the publication of this article, The Communication Group's office announced the postponement of the July 22 London meeting to a later not yet determined date in September.