Might as well face it, we’re addicted to sand
Our whole society is built on sand. It’s not a metaphor. Just about every apartment block, office building, skyscraper or shopping mall, the windows in them, and the roads that connect them, are made with concrete. That’s sand and gravel glued together with cement. Even the production of silicon chips requires sand.
After water, sand is the world’s most consumed raw material. Its use has tripled in the past two decades. And our insatiable demand for breakneck urban growth means it is running out. We are consuming it at a rate far greater than the natural rate that it can be replenished.
Small, round grains of desert sand aren’t suitable for use in concrete. The construction industry needs sand shaped by water, with a rough, angular surface for sand to stick to. Marine sand isn’t ideal (the salt has to be removed). But in the billion-dollar sand industry, the extra step is worth it.
But a large quantity of material can’t be extracted without a significant impact on the environment, biodiversity and local communities. Around the world, the increasing scarcity is leading to largescale illegal mining, sand mafias and deadly conflicts.
In the coming weeks New Zealand will be faced with the dilemma. Do we choose between our buildings or our beaches? McCallum Bros Limited, an Auckland-based company, has applied for resource consent to continue vaccuming sand from the seabed, using a suction dredge, over a 10.8km stretch of pristine Northland coast. The permission would stretch over 35 years.
But commercial sand extraction has been happening in the clear waters of the MangawhaiPakiri embayment for close to 70 years. Around 5.5 million cubic metres of sand has already been taken. Having seen the effects, the local community believes enough is enough and is fighting the application.
At the heart of their opposition are the dramatic dunes of the Mangawhai sandspit, a long white
This week will mark a crucial milestone in the national debate about whether economic rewards can be squared with the substantial environmental risks.
stretch of sand sheltering the popular seaside settlement. It is home to at-risk endemic birds, like the dotterel, red-billed gull and most crucially the fairy tern. The tara iti is our most endangered bird, with only around 30 left.
This is not Mangawhai’s first rodeo. In 1988 Cyclone Bola caused the ocean to breach the spit, resulting in stagnant and polluted waters. Kaipara District Council, Northland Regional Council and the Department of Conservation told locals that the spit couldn’t be saved.
The community rallied, excavating the original harbour entrance and over many years, thousands of dollars and hundreds of volunteer hours, they restored their treasure. Locals pay a targeted rate to keep their harbour in pristine condition.
In 2004, the community battled again. An application for sand extraction in the Northland Region was declined by the Environment Court. The latest application is being heard by Auckland Council, two hours away, which is galling to locals, who see none of the economic benefits of the dredged sand, which is taken back to Auckland. There are a range of concerns from coastal erosion, degradation of the seabed, the damage to recreational values especially world-class surf breaks and the risk to the critically endangered fairy terns. As climate change drives sea level rise, storm severity and frequency, locals are also worried about the future of their homes.
They argue that sand mining operations out of Kaipara Harbour, which are already consented, can adequately supply the Auckland and wider construction industry.
Callum McCallum, the company’s owner, argues the coastline is no longer pristine because of the residential development that has occurred in the area. He says the mining is a ‘‘minor risk’’ to the beaches and foreshore.
Kaipara District Council, Greenpeace, the Endangered Species Organisation, Fairy Tern Trust, Surf Riders Association and Te Wha¯ nau o Pakiri oppose the application. They are drawing hope from a 2020 ruling in the Supreme Court which quashed a plan to mine millions of tonnes of iron sand off the coast of South Taranaki.
And earlier this month residents close to Westport stopped a proposed sand mine, that they feared would destroy a wildlife hotspot.
The virtual hearings begin this week. It will mark a crucial milestone in the national debate about whether economic rewards can be squared with the substantial environmental risks.
The case also raises significant questions about New Zealand’s commitment to ocean conservation. It is Government policy (and an election promise made by Labour and the Green Party) to put 30 per cent of New Zealand waters under marine protection by 2030. The threats from climate change make the impetus to do that even greater.
Why then are local communities repeatedly being forced into draining David v Goliath battles to ensure that commitment is met?