COVID-19 isn’t the only problem going viral. Economic insecurity is driving gold prices to record highs around $1,700 per ounce, causing levels of global mercury pollution to rise too. In the United States coal-fired power plants drive mercury pollution, but globally, the leading cause is small-scale ‘artisanal’ gold mining. Roughly 30 million men, women, and children in poor countries depend on mining for subsistence incomes. Unfortunately, the cheapest and easiest way to mine gold uses mercury, a highly toxic heavy metal the United Nations is striving to eliminate.

As the gold price climbs, more and more miners rush into delicate ecosystems. Working in groups to clear forests, they expose each other to Covid-19 and interact with biodiversity “hotspots,” releasing new global pathogens and massive amounts of mercury. After poisoning people locally, mercury travels through the atmosphere and ends up in fish, poisoning people worldwide. Put differently, the mercury in our tuna comes from the making of our wedding rings.

Southern governments are struggling to control the situation. Partnering with the United Nations to create new laws is one approach. Another approach—the focus of my new research published in Ecological Economics—is for NGOs to write voluntary sustainability standards and label gold mined and sold in compliance with them. This is the idea behind the ‘fair trade’ and ‘eco-labeling’ schemes we see when shopping for coffee, bananas, or chocolate. Now the Alliance for Responsible Mining (Alliance) and Fairtrade International run similar programs for gold jewelry. 

In a time when opinions vary on governments’ handling of global crises, relying on markets to solve problems is appealing. Yet the ‘fair trade’ foray into gold jewelry is struggling too: existing programs fail to align the capacities, interests, and outlook of key constituents, resulting in low uptake and little change.

‘Fair trade’ struggles to fit gold market realities

While differences between the Alliance and Fairtrade gold programs are important and summarized in my new and previous research, it’s their similarities that shed light on their prospects. Both programs require miners to acquire legal permits. Yet governments prefer to save permits for larger-scale operations that are (surprisingly) less environmentally harmful. While governments want artisanal miners to work, it’s easiest to encourage ‘informal’ mining so that government hands are clean if and when disaster strikes (miners are then characterized as ‘criminals’).

On the consumer end, jewelry shoppers complain of high prices for certified versus regular gold; paying 15 percent more for a $10 bag of ‘ethical’ coffee feels different than paying 15 percent more on a $1,000 ring. While the special occasion nature of jewelry might offset this, psychology research indicates the opposite: customers tend to make excuses to indulge if it’s ‘just this once.’ And unlike the ‘blood diamond’ phenomenon, few shoppers are familiar enough with the ‘dirty gold’ story to overcome these barriers. 

Most troubling, programs aren’t popular with miners. One problem is autonomy. Miners are often entangled in conflict-affiliated networks that certification would disrupt.

A second problem is priorities. Programs demand changes miners don’t inherently want to make. Permits, once again, are stumbling blocks since they take months to acquire if granted at all. Miners must feed their children, so often prefer a little money today to more money tomorrow. And many miners believe mercury’s harmless; understandable since it is odorless, invisible when vaporized, and mercury poisoning symptoms intensify gradually. Some miners know the risks, but keep using mercury anyway, citing other problems as more dire. Miners further resent program hassles, such as paperwork, new technology, and altering social norms.

This gets to a third problem—program payments aren’t offsetting these costs. Most program participants subsist just above poverty lines, and many drop out. Some are unable to renew permits, protect operations from armed incursions, or want fewer cultural impingements, but most de-certifications 2013-2020 were financially driven. In Bolivia, Cotopata mining group was both small and remote, resulting in low production volumes, high logistical costs, and therefore low profits. In Colombia, low consumer demand drove La Llanada miners to downgrade from the Alliance’s mercury-free certification to their less lucrative certification, and to eventually de-certify altogether. In Uganda, SAMA’s mine collapsed due to flooding and they couldn’t afford to rebuild.  

Results: low uptake, low impact, and the need for revision

Mid-2020, the average program dropout rate is 43 percent: 8 groups dropped out of the Alliance’s program (38 percent); 11 groups dropped out of Fairtrade’s (48 percent). Certified miners account for roughly 0.01 percent of the artisanal mining population. And the majority of these miners lived above poverty lines prior to certification, meaning programs failed to reach the poorest of the poor. Even if they had reached miners in extreme poverty, program payments aren’t large enough to lift miners out of poverty. Certified groups exist in Colombia (4), Peru (15), and Mongolia (2), but attempts have failed in Africa, where the need for support is severe. Globally, only 2 out of 21 certified groups use mercury-free methods. The rest use methods that lower mercury, but keep demand, supply, and associated global harm flowing. 

In response to the low uptake, the Alliance created a ‘stepping-stone’ program called the CRAFT Code. CRAFT uses self-reporting instead of outside audits, and foregoes requirements on permits and mercury to focus on conflict and poverty. By connecting miners to businesses seeking compliance with the Dodd-Frank laws on conflict minerals, the Alliance hopes CRAFT will build miners’ desire and capacity to certify. Critics worry CRAFT will serve as a weaker alternative to certification, thwarting not fostering change.   

The leadership of these programs know that artisanal gold mining is one of the toughest sectors to reform, and are seeking the public’s help. Both Fairtrade and the Alliance encourage consumers to buy certified gold jewelry for weddings and holidays. The Alliance further wants public feedback on its certification and CRAFT programs. While recycled gold and non-mining livelihoods are the best long-term solutions to the gold and mercury problems, in the short-term, improved certification programs that better align with stakeholder interests are worthwhile goals.