Gold Mining Sustainability in Colombia: Prioritizing a Mercury-Focused Approach

Wed July 01 2026

Gold has intrinsic and cultural value, as well as technological utility, which underpin its steadfast demand on the global market. However, supplying gold comes at a substantial cost.

Up to 20 percent of the world’s gold comes from artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM), which is conducted by individuals and small enterprises with limited capital. Modern-day ASGM practices contribute to significant human health and environmental harms in disadvantaged communities and critical habitats. In particular, the use of mercury in gold mining gives rise to potent toxin poisoning in humans and contributes considerably to biodiversity and ecosystem degradation.

Over the past decade, various national and international actions attempted to address these ASGM issues. Many countries have instituted domestic mineral mining laws that aim to legally regulate the sector and monitor mining practices. The Minamata Convention on Mercury, an international treaty, also intends to safeguard against mercury (gold mining’s worst toxin) on a global scale. But these actions have delivered negligible industry impact to date.

Using Colombia as a case study, this Note analyzes the challenges in legally formalizing the small-scale gold mining industry and instituting protective regulation. It argues that continued emphasis on mercury elimination could still yet catalyze the adoption of sustainable gold mining practices. A mercury-mitigating approach in ASGM should be prioritized for two key reasons. First, mercury contamination from mining generates relatively significant health and environmental harm to vulnerable communities compared to other abuses within the sector. Additionally, recent strategic advancements make mercury monitoring easier to administer and mercury use easier to replace within the mining process. For these reasons, mercury trade regulation should be prioritized over alternative strategies that focus on gold trade regulation more broadly.

Moving forward, to better mitigate mercury use in ASGM for countries like Colombia, policymakers should prioritize improving the efficiency of litigation and adjudication pathways for mining law violations, with an emphasis on protecting environmental defenders and other advocates. Additionally, instead of adopting strategies that trace the origins of gold or regulate gold trade through certification, industry regulation should focus on identifying mercury pollution as an indicator of gold supply chain discrepancies. Colombia should also prioritize Indigenous and Afro-descendant empowerment in mercury- monitoring projects. Such mercury-based policy improvements may be easier to detect and could empower those communities most vulnerable to ASGM’s harms. Collectively these improvements could catalyze a much-needed sector-wide shift toward sustainable ASGM management.

Source: https://www.californialawreview.org/