.

1. 6.1.2005
1
Kimberley Process Working Group on Monitoring
Informal working paper
Ad-hoc sub-group on alluvial diamond production
– proposed structure and main objectives –
1.The mandate
The 2004 Ottawa Plenary meeting of the Kimberley Process, in two sessions devoted
specifically to ‘capacity-building for Kimberley Process implementation’ and ‘development
diamonds’, considered the specific challenges facing alluvial diamond producing countries in
putting in place systems of traceability and control of diamond production and maximizing
the development potential of their diamond sectors. As a result of this discussion, Plenary
decided to mandate the Working Group on Monitoring to establish an ad-hoc sub-group to
address the challenges facing alluvial producers and promote the exchange of best practices; it
was understood in this context that the work of such a sub-group should be seen as part of the
wider efforts of the Kimberley Process to ensure effective internal controls and should be
fully consistent with the peer review system of the Kimberley Process (both of which fall
within the remit of the Working Group on Monitoring). It was decided that membership of the
sub-group should be drawn primarily from alluvial diamond-producing countries. It was
further decided that the ad-hoc sub-group should report back to the 2005 Plenary meeting
through the Chair of the Working Group on Monitoring.
2.Main outputs to be delivered by the sub-group
In accordance with the mandate from Plenary, the sub-group should present a report to the
2005 Plenary. Such a report could comprise the following main elements:
• A ‘stock-taking’ of the challenges facing alluvial producers with regard to
o Traceability of rough diamonds from mine to first export
o Licensing and effective supervision of artisanal miners
o Licensing and effective supervision of traders (such as négociants) and buying
offices
o Tax differentials and other incentives for cross-border smuggling
o Specific challenges facing different regions of production (with particular
reference to Central Africa, West Africa, and Latin America)
• An inventory of best practices, with particular regard to
o Existing efforts to ensure full traceability of production from mine to first
export
o Existing legal frameworks and systems for licensing of miners
o Existing legal frameworks and systems for licensing of traders (such as
négociants) and buying offices
o Comprehensive systems for assisting and supervising small-scale mining
• Recommendations and guidelines, with particular regard to
o Enhancing traceability of artisanal production at the national level

2. 6.1.2005
2
o Enhancing interaction between relevant institutions and instruments at the
national level
o Enhancing interaction between relevant institutions at the regional level
• An overview of possible types of external technical assistance to support alluvial
diamond producers, with particular regard to
o Supporting national efforts to improve traceability of artisanal production
o Supporting national efforts to bring artisanal miners into the formal sector, and
to improve the technical capacity of small-scale mining
o Supporting national efforts to improve the coverage and effectiveness of land
registries
o Supporting efforts at the regional level to combat illicit trafficking of rough
diamonds
3.Composition and structure of the sub-group
3.1. Composition
The mandate from Plenary provides that membership of the sub-group should be drawn
primarily from alluvial diamond-producing countries. It is therefore proposed that the sub-
group should be open to all alluvial diamond-producing Participants in the KPCS.
As a first indication, the sub-group could thus comprise the following alluvial producers as
members:
- Angola
- Brazil
- Central African Republic
- Democratic Republic of Congo
- Côte d’Ivoire
- Ghana
- Guinea
- Guyana
- Namibia
- Sierra Leone
- South Africa
- Tanzania
- Togo
- Venezuela
The Chair and Vice-Chair of the Kimberley Process and the Chair of the Working Group on
Monitoring would be ex-officio members of the sub-group. The sub-group should also be
open to any members of the Working Group on Monitoring who wish to participate in its
deliberations. It would moreover comprise representatives of industry and civil society. The
Chair of the Working Group of Diamond Experts would be invited to participate in the sub-
group’s work. Moreover, the sub-group could invite representatives of bilateral and
multilateral donor organizations (including the international financial institutions) to
participate in its discussions as appropriate. It is understood that the major diamond trading

3. 6.1.2005
3
Participants could also be invited to provide substantive input into the work of the sub-group
where appropriate.
3.2. Structure
The sub-group will report to the Working Group on Monitoring, and will report to Plenary
through its Chair, but should work as autonomously as possible within its mandate. The
substantive work of the sub-group will be coordinated by three Coordinators to be chosen
through consultations by the Chair of the Working Group on Monitoring; all major alluvial
diamond-producing regions should be represented among these Coordinators. The
Coordinators will be responsible for collecting relevant experiences and best practices,
including those specific to their regions, and for bringing these to the attention of the sub-
group as a whole. They will also be responsible for drafting the report that is to be presented
to the 2005 Plenary.
4.Working methods
The working methods of the sub-group should be adapted to its practical, results-oriented
mandate, which is focussed on the presentation of a report to Plenary and on the operational
exchange of best practices between alluvial diamond producing countries. Specifically, the
sub-group could use a combination of the following working methods to accomplish its
objectives:
• Discussion by electronic correspondence
• Occasional teleconferences to discuss strategic objectives and review progress
• Meetings hosted by one of the members of the sub-group, if considered
necessary
The Working Group should draw extensively on relevant work already accomplished in the
Kimberley Process, notably in the context of the peer review process; in this regard, it should
notably take into account annual reports and reports of review visits and missions.
The full Working Group on Monitoring would be kept informed of the sub-group’s
deliberations throughout. The sub-group could also provide occasional updates on its work to
Plenary through the Chair of the Kimberley Process.
5.Tentative work-plan
The following could serve as an indicative schedule for the timeframe in which the sub-group
could carry out its work:
• By 31 December 2004: finalize composition of sub-group and agree on basic
structure and objectives
• January 2005: convene first teleconference of entire sub-group and agree on
specific objectives and work-plan
• January-May 2005: conduct fact-finding work at the regional level to identify
challenges, best practices and technical assistance needs

4. 6.1.2005
4
• June-July 2005: discussion of findings
• August-September 2005: compile final report and draft recommendations
• October 2005: present report to Plenary