Potential health impacts: Mental problems including stress, depression and suicide, Health problems related to alcoholism, prostitution, Occupational disease and accidents, Infectious diseases, Deaths.

Visible social impacts: Displacement, Land dispossession.

Potential social impacts: Increase in violence and crime, Loss of traditional knowledge/practices/cultures, Specific impacts on women, Loss of landscape/sense of place, Loss of livelihood.

Stakeholder engagement was conducted for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which was published in January 2013. Policies underlying stakeholder engagement were stated as generic principles which include respect and recognition of cultures and values, transparency and consultation and seeking to create lasting, but temporally unspecific, relationships built on trust and mutual respect. To this end, WML considers that local communities have been consulted and ‘informed' of planned mining and mine-related activities. A number of global environment Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO's) and religious organisations are listed within the EIS as being potential stakeholders, but the EIS gives no indication that any NGO groups have been involved. The Mineral Policy Institute requested involvement before the EIS was released for public consultation in July 2013. This was ignored and numerous subsequent requests for the EIS were rejected by Kula Gold directors.

Impacts upon local communities were considered to be ‘direct', ‘indirect' or ‘minimal'. This assessment appears based solely upon geographical proximity to the mine itself. The only village considered to be directly impacted by the mine was Kulumandau. In this case, direct impact consists of relocating nearly 10% of the population of Woodlark Island. WML have indicated that it will facilitate communication with the local communities by ‘credible' and ‘trusted' representatives, but it is unclear how these representatives were selected and how the qualities of credibility and trustworthiness were measured and whether they were assessed by WML, the local communities or both. Key potential points of conflict involve the lack of specific plans for relocation and compensation of these affected villagers. Relocation will mean that land has to be retitled and returned to traditional owners. These concerns are magnified because of uncertainties about the time-frame of the project and exploration activity associated with adjacent leases.

The proposed marine mine waste disposal has further potential for conflict involving both local communities and those bordering the Solomon Sea. There are specific concerns about the impact on the marine environment and fishing activities in particular. Marine mine waste disposal has proven to be very controversial in PNG and was the subject of a series of court cases involving the Ramu Nickel mine and Basumuk Bay refinery.

Potential: Air pollution, Biodiversity loss (wildlife, agro-diversity), Floods (river, coastal, mudflow), Loss of landscape/aesthetic degradation, Noise pollution, Soil contamination, Waste overflow, Deforestation and loss of vegetation cover, Surface water pollution / Decreasing water (physico-chemical, biological) quality, Groundwater pollution or depletion, Reduced ecological / hydrological connectivity, Mine tailing spills, Soil erosion, Large-scale disturbance of hydro and geological systems