Recently, I took a call about cyanide from a café in Nairobi. When the conversation ended, and I pulled out my headphones, I noticed a few people nearby staring at me. Fair enough. To most people, “cyanide” means one thing: poison. But for me—at least recently—it’s become a standard part of my work vocabulary.
At Mwamba, we’ve been working to align our cyanide management practices with the International Cyanide Management Code. Over the past few months, I’ve spent a lot of time discussing cyanide with a wide group: downstream industry, technical experts, policymakers, and, most importantly, our team on the ground.
It’s been a genuinely interesting process, so I thought I’d share a few reflections:
- Cyanide is still widely misunderstood: It’s often grouped in the same category as mercury, which doesn’t reflect how it’s actually used. In gold processing, cyanide operates within a controlled chemical process that—when properly managed—can be predictable, contained, and significantly less environmentally harmful than alternatives. The risk profile is real, but it’s also manageable in a way that mercury use isn’t.
- “Meeting the standard” is not just a technical exercise: Aligning with international frameworks is often framed as a question of training or systems. In practice, a lot of the challenge is structural. For example, the Code requires certified transport and secure supply chains—but those systems don’t always exist or function reliably in rural Sub-Saharan Africa. A compliant system on paper can be difficult to operationalize when faced with certain realities.
- The gap for smaller operators is still significant: There’s a lack of clear, practical guidance for operations working with limited resources in complex environments. The expectations are often designed with large-scale mining in mind, which creates a disconnect. Bridging that gap requires more than compliance—it requires adaptation.
- Trust is as important as chemistry: Cyanide management isn’t just about protocols—it’s about whether communities, workers, and regulators believe those protocols are being followed. That trust has to be built deliberately, especially in contexts where mining already carries a legacy of harm.
- Alignment is iterative, not binary: There’s a tendency to think in terms of “compliant” vs “non-compliant.” In reality, it’s a process of continuous improvement. For smaller operations, progress often looks incremental—tightening controls, improving documentation, strengthening oversight—rather than flipping a switch.
So far, this process has been a strong reminder that responsible production is as much about practical implementation as it is about technology—and that real progress happens when the two are aligned.
