Tuvalu technical report, household aggregate mining on

SOPACEU EDF 8 – SOPAC Project Report 132

Reducing Vulnerability of Pacific ACP States

TUVALU TECHNICAL REPORTHousehold aggregate mining on Funafuti

March 2009

EU EDF-SOPAC Reducing Vulnerability of Pacific ACP States Household aggregate mining on Funafuti, Tuvalu 2

[EU-SOPAC Project Report 132 – Ambroz]

AUTHOR:

Angela AmbrozSOPAC Secretariat

March 2009

For more copies of this report, apply to the SOPAC Secretariat at the address below:

PACIFIC ISLANDS APPLIED GEOSCIENCE COMMISSIONSOPAC Secretariat

Private Mail BagGPO, Suva

FIJI ISLANDShttp://www.sopac.org

Phone: +679 338 1377Fax: +679 337 0040

E-mail: [email protected]

IMPORTANT NOTICE

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Community;however, the views expressed herein must never be taken to reflect the official opinion of the

European Community.

http://www.sopac.org

mailto:[email protected]



TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................................................................................................4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................................6

THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY...................................................................................................................................................7Design ...................................................................................................................................................................................7Results ..................................................................................................................................................................................8

Sand and gravel collection ..............................................................................................................................................8Rock collection .................................................................................................................................................................9Shell collection ...............................................................................................................................................................10Total reported extraction................................................................................................................................................11Discussion ......................................................................................................................................................................11Purpose of aggregate collection ...................................................................................................................................11Household views on mining...........................................................................................................................................13Income ............................................................................................................................................................................14Estimated total aggregate extraction by households on Fongafale ............................................................................16

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................................17

BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................................................................................................................................................18

ANNEXES 1 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE SOPAC 2007 FUNAFUTI SURVEY .........................................................................19 2 LIST OF ASSUMPTIONS ...........................................................................................................................................26

List of Tables

Table 1: Overall mining on Funafuti, by material. ...................................................................................................................8Table 2: Frequency of sand and gravel mining. ......................................................................................................................8Table 3: Location of sand and gravel mining. .........................................................................................................................8Table 4: Equipment used by households in the mining of sand and gravel. .........................................................................9Table 5: Equipment for transportation and/or storage of sand and gravel used by households..........................................9Table 6: Frequency of rock mining...........................................................................................................................................9Table 7: Equipment used by households in the mining of rocks............................................................................................9Table 8: Which household members collect shells? .............................................................................................................10Table 9: Frequency of shell collection. ..................................................................................................................................10

List of Figures

Figure 1: How households use aggregate (sand, gravel).....................................................................................................12Figure 2: How households use rocks.....................................................................................................................................12Figure 3: How households use shells. ...................................................................................................................................13Figure 4: Primary sources of income. ....................................................................................................................................14Figure 5: Secondary sources of income. ...............................................................................................................................15Figure 6: Tertiary sources of income. ....................................................................................................................................15



Abbreviations

ACP Africa Caribbean and Pacific countries of the Lomé ConventionEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEU European UnionEDF European Development FundPWD Public Works Department, Government of TuvaluSPREP Pacific Regional Environmental ProgramSOPAC Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was conducted as part of the European Union funded project Reducing Vulnerability inPacific ACP States. The funding from the EU is gratefully acknowledged.

Many thanks to the staff at the Lands and Survey Department in the Ministry of NaturalResources of Tuvalu, especially Faatasi Malologa, Kulene Kulene and Loia Tausi, whocoordinated meetings, obtained government records, and provided translation. Vakafa Lupe, AneTalia and Collin Namoliki provided logistical support. They also helped in determining the densityratios of local sand and gravel. Loia Tausi was instrumental in organizing and managing thehousehold survey. Timaima Lutelu, Paula Siose, Sokotia Kulene, Uni Liufau provided valuableassistance in conducting interviews for the household survey.

Government stakeholders provided helpful support for the survey and access to criticalinformation records. The Public Works Department, the Quarantine Office, and the CustomsOffice provided especially useful records.

Thanks to all members of the Kaupule and Falekaupule for their support for the work. Particularthanks go to Hellani Tumua for her advice on a variety of technical issues including themanagement of aggregate mining.

Many staff members of SOPAC gave valuable support and advice. Paula Holland, SeniorAdvisor, Natural Resources Governance, and Allison Woodruff, Resource Economist, providedhelp and guidance in the economic analysis and facilitated stakeholder meetings. Arthur Webb,Manager, Oceans and Islands Program at SOPAC, answered scientific queries regarding erosionissues and technical aggregate matters in Tuvalu.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Aggregate mining is a widespread activity on Fongafale with over half the households collectingsand, gravel, rocks or shells at some point during the year. Most collection is done by hand andthe bulk of aggregate collected are used for domestic purposes such as construction or housedecoration.

The magnitude of aggregate collection is considerably higher than that suggested by officialrecords. Although this is partially explained by the fact that some legal mining occurs in inlandareas where no records of extraction are required, it is also likely that illegal mining is extensive.

Reliance upon income from the sale of aggregate is very low. The most important source ofincome for households on Fongafale is Government salaries. Income from mining barely registersas even a third source of income. This reflects the fact that Funafuti’s market for aggregate islimited, with most households retaining their mined aggregate for personal use.

Acknowledging that aggregate mining can be harmful to the environment, there is keen interestamong many Fongafale households to find a sustainable alternative source of aggregate forFongafale. Only a very small minority of households rejected the idea of controlling aggregatemining. Most households that expressed a view appeared to support Kaupule and Governmentattempts to find an alternative source of aggregate to coastal mining. This is an encouraging signfor future enforcement; at least nominally, the community is aware of the problem and interestedin resolving it.

Managing aggregate supply is likely to require access to more information in the future. Forexample, more information is needed on the type of demand within the household sector. Themajority (53%) of householders interviewed in the survey occupied timber constructions, yetstated that they required aggregate for construction purposes. It is possible that householders areusing timber for their construction purposes because only limited volumes of aggregate areavailable1. This suggests that the apparent demand for aggregate is an underestimate.

1 Of the households interviewed, 40% were brick/concrete constructions, and 1% were both brick/concrete and timber. Interviewers identified thetype of house construction material for 94% of interviewed households.



INTRODUCTION

The Government of Tuvalu worked with the Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission(SOPAC) in 2008 on a European Development Fund project called Reducing Vulnerability inPacific ACP States. The goal of the project was to reduce the vulnerability of Pacific countries tonatural disasters. In Tuvalu, a key disaster issue is flooding, particularly that arising from coastalerosion. As part of the Reducing Vulnerabilities project, SOPAC has assessed coastal erosionaround Funafuti and identified possible causes and solutions. These studies identified thepractice of mining aggregate around the island as a key contributor to coastal erosion aroundFongafale.

Aggregate is defined as sand, gravel and rip-rap (rocks and boulders). Aggregate is required onFunafuti for construction, road maintenance, and filling borrow pits and low-lying areas. OnFongafale, the Government, businesses and families currently source most aggregate by miningthe sand, gravel and rocks naturally occurring along the coast; however, there is only a limitedamount available and removing too much can contribute to erosion. Some large-scale projectsimport aggregate, but this is generally too expensive for most people. Imports also carry risks ofinadvertently bringing in plants, insects or other pests.

To provide an alternative supply of aggregate, the Government of Tuvalu conducted a small-scalepilot project in the 1990s to dredge aggregate from Funafuti Lagoon. The aggregate extractedwere used to infill a local borrow pit. The pilot project, which lasted from 1992 to 1993, wasrelatively small scale: 1,000 m3 of sand was dredged from the lagoon. An accompanyingenvironmental impact assessment (Kaly and Jones 1994) determined that dredging had limitedadverse environmental impact on the lagoon and that dredging would be environmentallysustainable provided that certain recommendations were observed.

Since the pilot project’s end, Funafuti’s aggregate demand has been met solely by coastalaggregate mining and imports. Given the coastal erosion problems associated with aggregatemining, and the increased risk of extreme weather events due to climate change, an alternativesource of aggregate needs to be considered which will reduce the pressure from local mining.

Household survey of aggregate mining

The Government of Tuvalu will determine whether to re-examine lagoon dredging as anenvironmentally sustainable alternative source of aggregate. While the environmental impact oflagoon dredging has already been assessed as being limited, no economic assessment has yetbeen undertaken to identify whether dredging would be commercially or economicallysustainable. Through the EDF Reducing Vulnerability Project, SOPAC is thus working with theGovernment of Tuvalu to conduct a financial and economic feasibility assessment of lagoondredging. A critical input to this is information on household demand and supply of aggregatearound Fongafale. Currently, records of household mining of aggregate on Fongafale are limitedto extraction from the beaches; however aggregate is known to be extracted from inland areas aswell.

A household survey was therefore conducted across Fongafale to assess:§ the type and amount of aggregate (sand, gravel, rocks and shells) collected by households;§ the purpose of extraction (domestic use, sale, etc.);§ the location of extraction (coast, inland); and§ management issues (see Box A).



Box A: Management of Beach Mining on Funafuti

Households and businesses on Fongafale can legally mine sand and gravel inland on their ownproperty at will. By comparison, they require a free of charge license from the Kaupule to minethe designated aggregate mining area of the coastline – this is the ocean-side beach parallel tothe air strip. License holders are required to pay A$2 per bag of aggregate collected (where astandard-size 20 kg rice bag is used; such a rice bag generally holds more than around 25 kg ofgravel and 31 kg of sand (Pelesikoti 2007)). Households and businesses apply for a licence andpay for the number of bags they intend to mine in advance. If a licence holder mines more thanhe or she paid for, or mines from anywhere else on the foreshore, he or she must pay a fine ofA$2 per extra bag collected. If the licence holder is unable to pay their fine, the Kaupuleconfiscates the bags and re-sells them. The same penalty applies to miners operating without apermit. Miners are normally given a week to pay.

Enforcement of beach mining is primarily conducted through two methods: (1) the KaupuleAggregates Officer, Apinelu Kelese, who patrols the lagoon and ocean-side beaches andimposes reprimands and fines for illegal mining; and (2) the community, which self-enforcesmanagement regulations via neighbors reporting each others’ illicit activities.

Government agencies must also apply to the Kaupule for a licence to mine. There are noregulations for the mining of shells.

(Hellani Tumua, Secretary, Kaupule, personal communication, 12 December 2007)

THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

Design

The survey was conducted using questionnaires containing closed and open-ended questions. Acopy of the questionnaire used is given in Annex 1. The survey took place from 10 to 17December 2007. Four Funafuti residents conducted interviews following a one-day trainingsession. While the training session was in English, the survey was conducted in Tuvaluan.

The 2002 population of Funafuti was 4,492, divided into 639 households (Central StatisticsDivision 2002). Based on a steady population growth rate of 1.3% (Knapman et al. 2002), thecurrent Funafuti population is estimated to be 4,792 people divided into 685 households. It wasnot practical in the time available to conduct a census of all households on the island. Instead, asample of households was selected. There were no immediately evident districts from which tosample (e.g. Tuvalu does not use enumeration districts for census purposes – Semu Malona,Government Statistician, Tuvalu, personal communication, 6 December 2007). Since Funafuti is asmall, homogenous community, a simple random sample of houses was taken, targeting 15% ofthe population (103 households). Interviewers were therefore directed to target every sixth housefor interview in the survey.

Ultimately, a total of 174 households were interviewed. This is 25% of the current number ofhouseholds.



Results

Of the households interviewed, just over half engaged in mining (Table 1). Of these, 89% minedfor sand and gravel, 44% collected rocks and 32% shells. Households rarely mined for onematerial exclusively, so the percentages recorded in Table 1 capture overlap betweenhouseholds who mine two or more sets of material.

Table 1: Overall mining on Funafuti, by material.

Material Number ofhouseholds % of total sample Rank

Any material 93 53% –Sand, gravel 83 48% 1

Rocks 41 24% 2Shells 30 17% 3

Sand and gravel collection

The majority of households mined sand and gravel only once a year, although there was asizable group who mined several times a week (Table 2).

Table 2: Frequency of sand and gravel mining.

Frequency % of households who mine sandand gravel

A few times a week 17%Weekly 4%Monthly 12%Every 6 months 2%Once a year 55%Every few years 8%No response 1%

Approximately half of the households stated that they mine exclusively on the ocean-sideforeshore (Table 3). Thirty-one percent mine inland, which is privately owned and where theKaupule neither has jurisdiction nor requires records of extraction. 30% of households claimed tomine on their own property, and 10% of households mined on both their own land and land whichthey did not own. The remaining 1% discrepancy between the percent of households who mine“inland” and those who mine on their “own land” suggests that a handful of people mine on theirneighbors’ property or on rented land.

Table 3: Location of sand and gravel mining.

Location % of households who mine sandand gravel

Ocean-side only 48%Inland & Ocean-side 15%Inland only 15%Both ocean and lagoon sides 12%Lagoon-side only 7%Inland & Both sides 2%No response 1%



In 68% of the households, only men mined for sand and gravel. Households used shovels andtheir hands to collect the aggregate (Table 4). The majority (78%) of households used thestandard-size 20 kg rice bag to transport and store aggregate (Table 5). Other equipment used intransportation and storage were trucks, baskets and buckets.

Table 4: Equipment used by households in the mining of sand and gravel.

Equipment for mining % of households who mine sand andgravel

Shovel 88%Hands 11%Shovel, tractor 1%

Table 5: Equipment for transportation and/or storage of sand and gravel used by households.

Equipment for transport and storage % of households who mine sandand gravel

20 kg rice bag 78%Truck 6%Other 5%50 kg rice bag 4%Wheelbarrow 2%No response 2%25 kg bag, Truck 1%Tractor 1%

Rock collection

Most households only mined for rocks once a year, although a large minority mined as much as afew times a week (Table 6). Men did most of the mining (69%), as was the case with sand andgravel. Generally, households used their hands to collect rocks (Table 7).

Table 6: Frequency of rock mining.

Frequency % of households who mine rocks

A few times a week 20%Weekly 5%Monthly 17%Once a year 42%Every few years 17%

Table 7: Equipment used by households in the mining of rocks.

Equipment for collection, transportand/or storage % of households who mine rocks



Hands 46%Truck 15%Wheelbarrow 12%20-kg rice bag 12%Wheelbarrow (small) 5%Tractors 5%No response 5%

Shell collection

In comparison to the collection of sand, gravel and rocks, shells were predominantly collected bywomen, with the occasional help of children (Table 8). The frequency of shell collection was alsosystematically higher than any of the other materials. Most households collected shells a fewtimes a week or once a month (Table 9).

Table 8: Which household members collect shells?

Household member % of households who collect shells

Women 73%Women & children 17%Everyone 10%

Table 9: Frequency of shell collection.

Frequency % of households who collect shells

Daily 10%A few times a week 30%Weekly 7%Monthly 23%Every few months 3%Every 6 months 10%Once a year 13%Every few years 3%

See Box B for a profile of the statistically average miner. This profile is not based on anyparticular household. Rather, the average was taken from each characteristic evaluated in thesurvey and then compiled into the description of a representative miner.



Total reported extraction

Per year average extraction was calculated by, first,converting the volume of aggregate reported per tripto its equivalent in standard 20 kg rice bags, and thenmultiplying that number of bags by the frequency oftrips per year. Estimation required the use of someassumptions about the number of trips made (seeAnnex 2 for a full list of assumptions). For example, ifa household replied that it mined for aggregate “a fewtimes a week”, this might reasonably be interpretedas occurring anywhere between 2 and 5 times perweek. To estimate total extraction for the household,a conservative assumption was made that thehousehold conducted an average of two trips perweek. This means that the estimated total extractionof aggregate by that family is most probably anunderestimate.

The average annual extraction for the entire samplewas 96 m3 of unsorted aggregate, 71 m3 of sand, and563 m3 of gravel. The entire sample also collected anaverage of 232 m3 of rocks per year. No estimatewas made of the volume of shell collection alongFongafale.

Discussion

Purpose of aggregate collection

Households collected aggregate (sand and gravel) typically for domestic purposes.

The most common uses for sand and gravel by households were: house construction, decoration,marking boundaries, grave construction and decoration, general house maintenance (whichincludes maintenance of the piggery, water tank, septic tank, and cooking area) and shorelinereclamation (Figure 1). Shoreline reclamation could be categorised under house maintenance.Yet it was singled out to emphasise the importance of environmentally-driven behaviors. Rockswere generally used for: house construction, marking boundaries, house maintenance and housedecoration (Figure 2). Once again, seawall construction and shoreline reclamation – which couldfall within the same category of house maintenance – were separately identified. Shells, asmentioned above, were used to make handicrafts for personal use and sale. They were also usedfor house decoration (Figure 3).

Only two households interviewed said they sold their sand and gravel and no households soldrocks. The households that sold sand and gravel stated that other households, the Governmentand construction companies were the buyers. Only one of the two specified how much of theiraggregate was sold: 40%. The aggregate sold was used for construction. One of the householdssold sand for A$1 per bag – notably, this is half the Kaupule price. The other household sold bagsof sand and bags of gravel for A$2 each. The low sale of household-extracted aggregateunderlines the fact that the private market for aggregate for construction is negligible; generally,the PWD, in collaboration with the Kaupule, is the biggest buyer and seller of aggregate(Ampelosa Tehulu, personal communication, 12 December 2007).

Box B: Profile of the StatisticallyAverage Miner

A typical aggregate miner who targetssand, gravel and/or rocks aroundFongafale is male, mines once a yearand uses a shovel and 20 kg rice bagsfor collection. He mines from the ocean-side foreshore where he does not ownthe land.

He uses the sand and gravel collectedfor house construction and brick making.It is unlikely that he also mines for rocks,though if he does, he uses his hands tocollect them and the rocks contribute tohouse construction. Generally, his wifewill meanwhile collect shells weekly fromthe beach. The shells go into housedecoration and handicrafts, both forpersonal use and sale.



The majority of households that collected shells did it in order to make handicrafts for sale (94%),though this was still only a minority of the total sample (29 households), implying that the marketfor shells is also small.

sale1%

shorelinereclamation

2%

housemaintenance

9%

markboundaries of

house13%

house decoration28%

houseconstruction/brick

making41%

no response4%

Figure 1: How households use aggregate (sand, gravel).

shorelinereclamation

2%

no response5%

sea wall5% house decoration

14%

mark boundaries26%

housemaintenance

19%

houseconstruction/brick

making29%

Figure 2: How households use rocks.



handicraft for sale82%

house decoration6%

handicraft forpersonal use

12%

Figure 3: How households use shells.

Household views on mining

Households were invited to share any views they had on aggregate extraction generally. Themajority of households that commented stated that beach mining should stop in Funafuti, severalpointing out the link between beach mining and beach erosion. Many households commented onvisible coastal erosion throughout the island. In fact, several households called upon the Kaupuleto collaborate with the Government of Tuvalu and SOPAC in finding a sustainable, alternativesource of aggregate. One household commented,

The Kaupule should stop beach mining, and theGovernment and SOPAC need to work together to find away to satisfy demand.

This opinion was echoed by several other households, who stated that the government andSOPAC should “provide aggregate” to the people of Funafuti. These households did not suggestwhere the alternative source of aggregate should come from.

By comparison, a handful of households believed that there should be no restrictions on beachmining, perceiving the coast as a natural formation “provided for human use”. One householdexplicitly stated,

Sand and gravel were provided by God to be used byhuman beings. Why should we stop people from mining?

Most households – 89% – were familiar with the rules of beach mining. They knew that theforeshore was under the Kaupule’s authority, and, while several households did not know thedetails (such as where to mine, or how to obtain a licence), households generally erred on the



side of caution: they believed beach mining was banned. The remaining 11% of households wereeither completely unaware of any regulations or believed that regulations did not exist.

There is a possibility that some families’ comments about aggregate mining on Fongafale weretailored. Given that the survey was well-advertised in the media, and that the SOPAC materialwhich accompanied the survey linked beach mining and coastal erosion, interviewed householdsmight have given answers which they thought were appropriate or expected. This is a typicalproblem with surveys.

Income

Families were asked about household income related to aggregate mining. Only 60% ofhouseholds responded to income questions so the responses reported here do not necessarilyreflect that of the entire sample. Some households listed only a single source of income, or onlythe first two. Their non-responses to a second or third source of income were relabeled as “none”to separate them from those households that did not respond to the income section at all.

The top source of income, for households that answered, was Government work (Figure 4). Thisis to be expected, as the Government has historically been the main employer on Funafuti(Government of Tuvalu-European Commission 2005). Private employment was another importantprimary source of income, while sailor and self-employment were sizable minorities. The secondmost important source of income was most often being a sailor (Figure 5), and the third mostimportant was self-employment (Figure 6).

remittances1%

government work61%

self-employed/own

business10%

employee11%

fishing3%

sailor14%

Figure 4: Primary sources of income.



no second income8%

fishing8% remittances

10%

self-employed/own

business18%

sailor27%

government work7%

other7%

employee15%

Figure 5: Secondary sources of income.

employee4%

handicraft sale1%no third income

67%

fishing6%

remittances5%

self-employed/own

business7%

sailor5% beach mining

2%

other2%

government1%

Figure 6: Tertiary sources of income.

Given the limited legal market for mined aggregate, sale of aggregate was unsurprisingly never aprimary or even secondary source of income in the households sampled. It represented only 1%of the third most important source of income for households. These were the two households thatsold aggregate. Aggregate mining is therefore an unimportant source of income on Fongafale.



Estimated total aggregate extraction by households on Fongafale

With a representative sample of 25 percent, the survey results suggest that current householdextraction of sand, gravel and mixed aggregate on Funafuti is in the order of 2 877 m3 across theentire island. This figure contrasts starkly with the records of the Kaupule which record totalextraction by households in 2007 at around 115 m3.

There are two reasons for this disparity. First, thesurvey reflects total extraction of aggregate fromaround the island as well as on privately-ownedinland areas. Since mining inland does not requirea permit or disclosure to the Kaupule, the officialrecords only capture official mining on the ocean-side foreshore. Total extraction determined by thissurvey will therefore naturally exceed volumesavailable from the Kaupule.

Second, it is likely that some under-reporting ofaggregate extraction occurs around Fongafale.Anecdotal evidence already indicates that someinfringements of mining restrictions (excessive orillegal mining) occur along Fongafale (HellaniTumua, personal communication, 12 December2007). It is therefore likely that the householdsurvey captures much of the illegal mining takingplace around the island.

In comparing how much is mined illegally on the(lagoon-side) foreshore and how much is mined legally inland, it would appear from the surveythat inland mining is limited: only 15% of households reported mining exclusively inland (Table 3);however, only 7% of the survey respondents mined exclusively on the lagoon-side, which isillegal. Respondents who mined on the ocean-side may have mined in an area not designated bythe Kaupule. It is therefore difficult to deduce exactly how many households are mining illegally,but it is clear that there is substantial unreported mining taking place given the large disparitybetween the survey results and the Kaupule records.

In an effort to gauge the extent and nature of illegal mining and illegal sellers, a confidentialinterview was held with a known seller of illegally-mined aggregate on Funafuti (Box C).

Box C: Profile of an Illegal Seller

“Sione Doe” has been selling illegally-mined aggregate since 1995. By now, itis his major source of income – he usesit to send his children to school. He sells20 kg rice bags filled with sand andgravel at A$3 per bag, the 50 kg ricebags are sold at A$6. His rate ofexcavation is determined by demand; themost he ever mined was two hundred 20kg bags in one trip.

As far as he knows, the aggregate areused for private construction. He mineson the foreshore, lagoon-side, with thehelp of his sons. (Anonymous Funafutiseller, personal communication, 13December 2007)



CONCLUSION

The extent of aggregate mining on Fongafale is substantial, with 53% of households interviewedstating that they mined from their own land, other land, or the foreshores. The predominantmaterial which was mined was sand and gravel. This corresponds to the widely-held belief amongTuvalu stakeholders that mining, both reported and unreported, occurs frequently on Fongafale.The survey did not, however, reveal the existence of an underground market for aggregate, asonly two households stated that they sold aggregate.

The majority of mined sand, gravel and rocks were used in house construction, decoration andthe marking of boundaries. In comparison, shells were used primarily in the making of handicraftsfor sale or personal use. The survey therefore revealed that sand, gravel, rocks and shells forman integral part of the production side of households: with relatively high frequencies of collection,these materials are used in the maintenance and development of private homes on a regularbasis. This use remains outside the market, however, the survey demonstrated that householdscollect their own aggregate for private use, that is, the formal market for aggregate is limited anddominated by the Government of Tuvalu (as the main buyer) and the Kaupule (as the mainseller).

This survey was conducted to understand both the formal and informal markets for aggregate onFongafale. In particular, annual demand for aggregate based on average extraction, wasestimated to be 2 877 m3. It is likely that an alternative source of aggregate – such as a lagoondredge – would not be able to displace the entire current demand. Alternative sources ofaggregate would need to compete with the private cost of unreported mining. Nonetheless, thetotal amount of aggregate mined, as reported by the survey, is likely to be under estimate due tothe constrained supply.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Central Statistics Division, Government of Tuvalu. 2002. Census 2002 key results.

Gibb Australia. 1985. Tuvalu lagoon bed resources survey. Australian Development AssistanceBureau.

Government of Tuvalu, European Commission. 2005. Joint annual report 2004.

Kaly, U.L., Jones, G.P. 1994. Final report on the pilot dredging project – Funafuti, Tuvalu:Assessment of ecological impacts on lagoon communities. SPREP Report and Studies Seriesno. 86.

Knapman, Bruce, Malcolm Ponton and Colin Hunt. 2002. Asian Development Bank. Tuvalu: 2002Economic and Public Sector Review.

McKenzie, E., Woodruff, A., McClennen, C. 2006. Economic assessment of the true costs ofaggregate mining in Majuro Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands. SOPAC Technical Report383.

Pelesikoti, N. 2007. Kiribati Technical Report. 1. Extent of Household Aggregate Mining in SouthTarawa. 2. Proposed Integrated Monitoring Framework for Tarawa Lagoon. EU-SOPACProject Report 72.

Smith, R. 1995. Assessment of lagoon sand and aggregate resources: Funafuti atoll, Tuvalu.SOPAC Technical Report 212.



ANNEX 1 – QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE SOPAC 2007 FUNAFUTI SURVEY

FUNAFUTI ECONOMIC STUDYHOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE



FUNAFUTI HOUSEHOLD AGGREGATE SURVEY

Date

Interviewer’s name

Address of household

Primary type of house Brick/Concrete Timber

We are collecting information to improve our understanding of beach mining on Funafuti. We want todetermine the best way of obtaining sand for construction. We would therefore be grateful if you canprovide any information you have about beach mining along the coastline of Funafuti to us. The informationyou give will remain anonymous. Thank you for your time and assistance.

A PARTICIPATION IN BEACH MINING

A1 Do you or members of your family collect sand, gravel, rocks or shells from the shorelinesof Funafuti? (circle) Y N

If ‘no’ is circled, go to section F.

B SAND AND GRAVEL COLLECTION

The purpose in this section is to determine the scale of sand mining on Funafuti.

B1 How often do people in your household collect sand and gravel from the coastline? (circle)

Everyday A few times a week

Once a week Once a month

Once every six months Once a year

Once every few years (e.g. for major projects) Never (If ‘never’ is circled, go now to section C.)

B2 Who in your household collects the sand and gravel? (circle)

Men Women

Children Everyone

B3 How do people in your household actually collect the sand or gravel? (circle)

By hand With a shovel

Machine e.g. digger Other (please specify) _________________________________________________________________________________________________

Questionnaire #(data entry)



B4 What size bag do people in your household use for collecting sand and gravel?(show bags) (circle)

25 kg rice bag 50 kg rice bag

Other (specify) ___________________ bag

B5 How many bags of sand and gravel are collected on average per trip?

___________________ bags

B6 Where do you collect sand and gravel?

Inland Beach, ocean-side

Beach, lagoon-side Beach, both sides

B6a Do you own the land where you collect the sand and gravel?

Y N

B7 What do you use the sand and gravel you collect for? (circle)

Graves

House construction/ brick making (If circled, include questions B8 and B9.)

Shoreline reclamation

Mark boundaries of house/ home

Sale (If ‘sale’ is circled, include questions B10, B11 and B12. If not, go to section C.)

Other (specify) ________________________________________________________________

B8 What would make you choose to use timber rather than bricks?

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

B9 What do you find cheaper to use for construction? (circle)

Timber Bricks

B10 Of the bags of sand and gravel that you collect, approximately what proportion (%) do yousell on average (eg., half the bags are sold? All the bags? A quarter of the bags?)?

__________________%



B11 Roughly what price do you sell the bags for?

Sand $______/ bag Gravel $______/bag

Sand $ _____ /50 kg bag Gravel $______/50 kg bag

B12 Who do you mostly sell to?

Other families Government

Construction companies International agencies

Other (specify) _______________

C ROCK COLLECTION

The purpose in this section is to determine the scale of rock collection on Funafuti.

C1 How often do people in your household collect rocks from the coastline? (circle)




Once every few years (e.g. for major projects) Never (If ‘never’ is circled, go now to section D.)

C2 Who in your household collects the rocks? (circle)

Men Women

Children Everyone

C3 What equipment do you use for collecting rocks?

25 kg rice bag 50 kg rice bag

Other bag (specify) ___________________ wheelbarrow (specify size) _________

Other equipment (please specify)________

C4 How many lots of rocks are collected on average per trip?

___________________ lots



C5 What do you use the rocks you collect for? (circle)

House construction/ brick making Graves

Shoreline reclamation Mark boundaries of house/ home

Sale (If ‘sale’ is circled, include question C6 and C7; if not, go now to section D.)

C6 Of the rocks you collect, what % would you say you sell on average?

__________________%

C7 Roughly what price do you sell the bags of rocks for?

Rocks $______/ 25 kg bag Rocks $______/ 50 kg bag

D SHELL COLLECTION

The purpose in this section is to determine the scale of shell collection on Funafuti.

D1 How often do people in your household collect shells from the coastline? (circle)




Once every few years (e.g. for major projects) Never (If ‘never’ is circled, go now to section E.)

D2 Who in your household collects the shells? (circle)

Men Women

Children Everyone

D3 What do you use the shells you collect for? (circle)

Handicraft for personal use Handicraft for sale

House decoration Sale, unprocessed

Other (please specify) _____________________________



E INCOME FROM BEACH MINING

The purpose in this section is to determine the importance of beach mining overall on Funafuti.

E1 Aside from sales from beach mining, what other sources of income do you have in thishousehold? (circle)

Government work Sailor

Fishing Self employed/own business

Other (specify) ________________________________________________________________

E2 Including the sales your household makes from beach mining, what are the top 3sources of income to your household? What share of total income do they provide?

Source Rank (e.g. 1, 2, 3, with 1 beingthe most important source ofincome)

% total household income

Sales from beach mining

Government work

Sailor

Fishing

Money from family overseas

Self employed/own business

Other (specify)

Other (specify)

Other (specify)



F MANAGEMENT OF BEACH MINING

The purpose in this section is assess the effectiveness of aggregate management on Funafuti.

F1 Are you aware of any rules about collecting sand, gravel, rocks or shells from the coastline?If so, what rules do you know about?

F2 Do you have any comments about beach mining on Funafuti?

This is the end of the survey. Thank you for helping us. If you would like to hear more about how SOPAC isworking with the Government of Tuvalu on coastal management, please contact:

Mr Arthur WebbManagement Oceans and Islands

ProgrammeSOPAC

Ph. 338-1377 x 270

THANK YOU FOR HELPING US IN THIS WORK.



ANNEX 2 – LIST OF ASSUMPTIONS

Used in the calculation of total reported extraction

1. For households who responded that they mined aggregate “a few times a week”, an averageof two times a week was assumed.

2. For households who responded that they mined aggregate “every few years” an average ofevery two years was assumed.

3. A typical truckload of aggregate was assumed to equal 30 standard-size rice bags. This wasderived from the Kaupule’s penalty structure: A$2 for a bag, and A$60 for a truckload.

4. Some aggregate was collected in 50 kg rice bags. Typical practice was to fill a 50 kg bag onlypart way as otherwise the bags would be too heavy for householders to carry by hand. Sincethe average weight of a 50 kg bag of aggregate was not known with certainty, it was assumedthat a 50 kg rice bag was equal to two full 20 kg rice bags.

5. 6 kg biscuit buckets were often used to collect aggregate. This was assumed to contain asmuch aggregate as a quarter of a standard-size 20 kg rice bag.

6. Generally speaking on Fongafale, sand is only located inland and gravel is located on thecoast. Therefore it was assumed that, unless otherwise specified:

§ If a householder claimed to collect inland, they collected only sand;

§ If they claimed to collect ocean-side, they collected only gravel;

§ If they collected both ocean-side and inland or ocean-side and lagoon-side,then they collected mixed aggregate.

7. Conversion rates were estimated using the density ratios found in Pelesikoti (2007).

8. Households which specified ambiguous units (“wheelbarrow”, “basket”) were omitted fromcalculations of average aggregate extraction. (A total of 5 observations were omitted.)

Documents

Tuvalu technical report, household aggregate mining on