Because of the debate within the industry on the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) Workshop’s adopted synthetic diamonds nomenclature, we asked CEN to clarify the legal status of this exercise. John Ketchell, director of Innovation and Business Development at CEN, delayed his reply because, “I didn’t want to be accused of interfering in ‘works in progress in a CEN Workshop.” But it was received in time, well before the CIBJO Congress.

Ketchell “first and foremost wants to stress once again that this activity does not have the status of a formal standards process, whatever accusations may be levelled against it! It represents the views of those approving it, and these companies and organizations are listed in the CEN Workshop Agreement (CWA).”

To reiterate that point once more, Ketchell notes that “each published CEN Workshop Agreement includes the following text on its cover:

 “This CEN Workshop Agreement has been drafted and approved by a Workshop of representatives of interested parties, the constitution of which is indicated in the foreword of this Workshop Agreement.

 “The formal process followed by the Workshop in the development of this Workshop Agreement has been endorsed by the National Members of CEN but neither the National Members of CEN nor the CEN Management Centre can be held accountable for the technical content of this CEN Workshop Agreement or possible conflicts with standards or legislation.

 “This CEN Workshop Agreement can in no way be held as being an official standard developed by CEN and its Members.”

In response to our articles, Ketchell notes, “I appreciate that you may have some issues over the participation in this Workshop, but, once again, our process does not require us to have any specific participation. As far as consumer interests are concerned, I can certainly tell you that I made personal efforts to involve our associate member with a vocation to represent consumer interests in European standardization activities, it cost me a lunch. It was their choice not to participate.” Though our editorials had stressed the exclusion of synthetic producers from the process, Ketchell actually focused on the lack of consumer representation, a point that has also been made by several CIBJO members.

We referred in previous editorials to the Workshop Sponsoring Organizations (the producers, CIBJO Europe, IDC, etc.), but Ketchell asked us to be more specific: “Please do not use the term “sponsoring organizations” as this is a narrower set of people than the Workshop. The CWA represents the opinions of the registered participants accepting the text.”

CEN Will Agree to Additional Workshop

As the outcome of Workshop 47 only represents the views of the participants, and has no further formal status, there is no problem for producers of synthetics, or for genuine cultured diamonds consumer groups, or for diamond bourses or even for disenchanted national CIBJO members, to enter into a separate Workshop Agreement with CEN. Ketchell explains, “Indeed there is absolutely no problem to have a separate/parallel/competing Workshop provided there is funding for the Secretariat (either from sponsors or from individual participant subscription) and of course that there is some support (i.e. from more than simply one company!).”

There are different ways to reach a European Standard for synthetics or anything, for that matter. The Workshop Agreement is not a “formal process,” but rather a private initiative by some interested parties. Explains John Ketchell: “The CEN formal process is very different. I think we are in the situation here where there is no active directly applicable Technical Committee. This means that the first requirement is for somebody to approach us or one of our national members to propose the work be done. We circulate then an enquiry to all our members asking them to express views (this process lasts three months). Assuming no adverse comments, then we would (probably in such a case) establish a Project Committee whose role it would be to draft the standard. Participants in this Committee would be delegates representing our national members (but in practice they would be experts in the subject matter). If there are adverse reactions, then the proposal falls to be discussed in our Technical Board.”

 “The CWA [such as the Workshop 47 results produced by the CIBJO/CEN agreement] can be used as an input document, but a Project Committee would not be bound to use it as the basis for whatever document was being produced. Furthermore, draft European Standards is submitted to public enquiry at national level. This process will only happen if someone expresses an interest and if there is sufficient support,” says Ketchell.

Only “Invited Participants” Can Respond

Because of the large number of representations (reactions) received by CEN after the final meeting, the Workshop Chair (who remained Sarah Winterton throughout, as she was appointed by the Kick-Off meeting) and Secretariat extended the approval period by one month to mid-February. “During this approval period,” writes Ketchell, “some strong positions were expressed on the CWA. To achieve full transparency on all positions expressed, the Chair decided to add as an Appendix to the final CWA the complete report of voting and comments, including supporting letters, as well as the observations to the comments by the chair and secretariat. The resulting text was circulated once again to the Workshop participants, who raised no objections to this course of action,” writes Ketchell.

“The result of this will, I understand, be a CEN Workshop Agreement that in fact represents the different arguments here involved, which is another difference in a CEN Workshop compared with formal standards making – we leave room for alternative approaches to be placed into the public domain,” explains Ketchell. The Diamond Intelligence Briefs then requested that relevant articles that had been published by us, and had also been submitted to the Secretariat in real time, be added to the documentation in the Appendix. This was refused. Responds Ketchell: “Regarding your proposal [to include these editorials], I fear it is too late. Had your suggestion been made during the final process of the CWA then it could have been considered by the Workshop, but the CWA text is now complete. The reactions to be included in the document are those expressed to the Workshop Secretariat during the final process,” concludes Ketchell.

It is important that industry stakeholders – as well as CIBJO National Members – have a clear understanding of the process, as well as of the importance – or lack of importance – of the report of the Workshop 47 results. To cite Ketchell once more: “When we receive the final text, then this will be published (with all the disclaimers above) as the Workshop’s result. The Workshop has completed its activities and will close.”

This will not end the discussion. Indeed, it may be just the beginning.

Have a nice weekend.