As parent company Anglo American moves forward with its of De Beers, Botswana’s aggressive maneuvers demonstrate that the country is firmly in the driver’s seat of its financial destiny. The Evolution of the Deal: From 10% to Equity
Why the aggression now? Because Botswana finally has leverage. De Beers' supply from other major sources, like South Africa and Canada, has dwindled. Furthermore, sanctions on Russian diamonds (Alrosa) have tightened global supply. Botswana is currently the world’s largest producer of diamonds by value. Without Botswana’s output, De Beers would struggle to maintain its dominance in the market.
De Beers’ counter is equally simple: We are the only ones with the global marketing machine (the "A Diamond Is Forever" legacy) and the banking relationships to keep prices stable.
Under the long-standing sales agreement, Debswana was obligated to sell 100% of its rough diamonds directly to De Beers. De Beers would then mix these stones with diamonds from South Africa, Namibia, and Canada, before selling them to its hand-picked buyers (Sightholders).
LGDs are chemically identical to mined diamonds but cost a fraction of the price. As consumers—particularly Millennials and Gen Z—prioritize price and ethical transparency, the demand for natural stones has softened. Some analysts believe that by the time Botswana gains full control of 50% of its production, the global price for natural rough diamonds may have collapsed to a point where the increased volume cannot offset the lost value. Transparency and the "Middleman" Problem
The most dramatic twist in this saga involves the future of De Beers itself. With its parent company, Anglo-American, looking to exit the diamond business, De Beers is officially up for sale. This has presented Botswana with a monumental decision: should it use its pre-emptive rights to buy a controlling stake in the very company that has historically controlled its destiny?
The ODC's share of Debswana production will rise immediately to 30%, gradually reaching 50% over the next 10 years.
Historically, the deal was highly lucrative in terms of cash generation but restrictive in terms of economic evolution. It kept Botswana dependent, structurally vulnerable, and confined to the bottom rung of the diamond value chain.
De Beers, now majority-owned by Anglo American, is resisting. They argue that the global diamond market is fragile. They claim that flooding a landlocked country with rough stones that cannot be sold for top dollar would destroy value. Privately, industry insiders admit that De Beers is terrified of a precedent. If Botswana takes control of its own supply, what stops Canada, South Africa, or Namibia from doing the same?
The Okavango Diamond Company’s allocation of rough diamonds instantly jumped from 25% to 30%, with a contractual trajectory to scale up to 50% over the next decade . This effectively gives Botswana a massive, independent commercial footprint in the global diamond market.
Economic outcomes: measurable benefits to Botswana
De Beers needs stability. Botswana, however, needs diversification. The government has launched a $6 billion initiative to become a diamond hub, including building a new diamond technology park and a forensic gemstone center.
