De Beers moved its global rough diamond sorting and sales operations from London to Gaborone in 2013, anchoring Botswana as a global gemstone capital.
Under the previous framework, the state-owned Okavango Diamond Company (ODC) received only 25% of the rough diamonds mined by Debswana, leaving De Beers with the lion's share to distribute through its proprietary network. This arrangement sparked a national debate over whether Botswana was receiving fair value for its primary natural resource. Breaking the Monopoly: Key Terms of the 2025 Agreement
Botswana Diamond Glut Crisis Hits 12M Carats in 2026 - Discovery Alert
As of early 2026, President Duma Boko has prioritized this transformation, aiming to boost local jobs, attract investment, and enhance the nation's economic independence, according to a Sunday Standard BW Facebook post and The Patriot on Sunday . Why Concerns Persist: The "Raw Deal" Argument De Beers moved its global rough diamond sorting
Under the legacy agreements, De Beers held an exclusive right to purchase and market the vast majority of Debswana’s rough diamond output. Until recently, Botswana’s state-owned diamond trading company, Okavango Diamond Company (ODC), was only allocated a meager 10% to 15% of the country’s own diamonds to sell independently. This meant De Beers effectively controlled the pricing mechanism, marketing narratives, and distribution channels, leaving Gaborone heavily reliant on De Beers' corporate strategy. The Turning Point: President Masisi’s Ultimatum
An initial BWP 1 billion (approx. $75 million) investment by De Beers to help diversify the economy, with potential for further contributions.
A multi-billion pula Diamonds for Development Fund was established to diversify Botswana's economy. Breaking the Monopoly: Key Terms of the 2025
The latest chapter in this partnership began with intense negotiations over a new sales agreement. The previous 10-year contract, signed in 2011, was extended multiple times due to the COVID-19 pandemic and complex discussions.
But is this enough? While an additional 5% represents millions of dollars in potential revenue, it does little to alter the fundamental power dynamic. De Beers will still market the majority of the diamonds through its monopoly channels for most of the decade. Furthermore, the deal was signed against the backdrop of a market cataclysm that has rendered these percentage increases almost irrelevant for the immediate future.
To help me tailor any further analysis on this economic partnership, tell me: Are you most interested in exploring the on this deal, the financial health of the Okavango Diamond Company (ODC) , or how Botswana plans to diversify its economy? Share public link This meant De Beers effectively controlled the pricing
However, analysts point out that De Beers pays royalties and taxes that are competitive, but perhaps not maximized for the producer's benefit. As the global diamond market fluctuates and synthetic (lab-grown) diamonds threaten natural prices, Botswana is seeking to secure a higher "floor" price or a larger volume allocation to sell independently. By relying heavily on De Beers' marketing machinery, Botswana arguably remains a tenant in its own house, renting out its soil rather than truly owning the product.
But as the world turns away from mined gems toward lab-grown stones, whispers in the Kalahari are growing into a roar. The question on every citizen’s mind: Is Botswana getting a raw deal?
But beneath the surface of this success story, long-standing grievances have festered. Critics have always pointed to a fundamental imbalance: Botswana supplies an astonishing 70% of De Beers' rough diamonds, yet until recently, it only owned 15% of the diamond giant itself. For many in Botswana, it was a partnership of unequals, where the country took the geological risk while the majority of the value flowed back to London and the Anglo-American shareholders.