Mercury and Cyanide in Artisanal Mining: Risks That Cannot Be Ignored

In many gold-producing regions, artisanal mining exists side by side with everyday community life. Miners, families, and pastoralists often share the same land, the same grazing areas, and most importantly, the same water sources. This reality makes the use of mercury and cyanide in artisanal mining far more than a technical issue—it is a community health and environmental concern that deserves serious attention.

Across rural Somaliland, water is typically sourced from natural springs, seasonal creeks, shallow wells, and underground aquifers. These water points are used for drinking, cooking, washing, livestock, and sometimes small-scale agriculture. When gold processing takes place in or near these sources, the boundary between mining activity and daily life disappears.

Mercury and cyanide are commonly used by artisanal miners because they are accessible and effective at recovering gold. However, without proper training, containment, or disposal systems, these chemicals are often handled in ways that allow them to enter the environment directly. In some cases, gold-bearing material is washed in creeks or springs, releasing chemical residues straight into water that is later consumed by people and animals. In other cases, tailings are discarded onto open ground, where rainfall and natural seepage allow contaminants to leach into underground water over time.

Once released, these substances do not simply disappear. Mercury can accumulate in the body, causing long-term neurological damage, while cyanide—though sometimes breaking down more quickly—can be acutely toxic to humans, livestock, and aquatic life. In pastoral communities, where animals depend on the same water sources as people, contamination can directly undermine livelihoods and food security.

What makes this issue particularly challenging is that unsafe chemical use is rarely intentional. Most artisanal miners are working with limited information, minimal equipment, and few alternatives. Processing methods are often passed down informally, without a clear understanding of the long-term effects of chemical exposure or how contamination spreads beyond the immediate mining site. The problem is not individual behavior, but the absence of safer systems.

This is where formal mining and controlled processing facilities can play a constructive role. Industrial processing plants are designed to contain chemicals, manage tailings responsibly, and prevent discharge into open water sources. By moving chemical processing away from rivers, creeks, and springs, these facilities significantly reduce environmental risk while also improving gold recovery.

Water contamination has consequences that extend far beyond mining areas. Polluted streams can flow downstream into larger water systems and eventually into coastal environments. Contaminated aquifers may affect communities that are not directly involved in mining at all. Over time, these impacts can erode trust between communities and mining operators, even when the original source of pollution was informal activity.

The risks associated with mercury and cyanide use in artisanal mining are real, but they are also preventable. Addressing them requires acknowledging how closely mining activity is woven into community life, particularly in regions where water is scarce and shared. Safer processing options, education, and integration of artisanal miners into formal systems are essential steps toward reducing harm.

Responsible mining in Somaliland must begin with protecting water. In rural and pastoral areas, safeguarding springs, creeks, and underground aquifers is not only an environmental obligation—it is a social one. Without clean water, no mining project, formal or informal, can claim to contribute positively to the communities around it.