This document discusses the Sand Engine project in Holland, an innovative pilot project that added 21.5 million cubic meters of sand to widen beaches and strengthen coastal defenses. It explores both opportunities, like creating new surf spots, and threats, like negative impacts on existing breaks. It outlines the Surfrider Foundation Holland's involvement to maximize surfing conditions and access, including forming a taskforce and advising the government. Key lessons learned include the need to get involved earlier in decision-making processes and that surfing interests faced challenges being heard against nature conservation groups. The project ultimately created a new surf spot, though without official access yet, and increased recognition of surfing in coastal policy going forward.

1. The Sand Engine (De Zandmotor)
Surfrider Foundation Holland
www.surfriderfoundation.nl
Martijn van Schaik
martijn@surfriderfoundation.nl

2. Coastal development and beach
replenishments
Not only a problem
Focus on opportunities & chances
God created the world but the Dutch created Holland

3. The Sand Engine (Zandmotor)
Holland below sea level
Long history of coastal
strengthening
Need for beach replenishment
Innovative pilot project
Using natural processes, the sea is
an ally (building with nature)
Currents, waves and wind erode and
re-distribute sand
21,5 million m3 of sand added
100 hectares to start
Safer due to wider beach & higher
dunes

4. Opportunities
Finally a pointbreak in Holland?
Diversify the coastline
Beach closer to deeper water
Recreational area
Less impact on
the environment

5. Threaths
Negative experiences with beach replenishments
Existing sandbars dissappear
Influence on other surfspots located nearby
No access (nature reserve)?
Temporary & uncertain effects

6. Getting involved
Goal;
Maximizing surfing conditions and getting access
How;
Proactive
Taskforce with the Holland Surfing Association and Kitesurf
Association, using external advisors on morphology & modeling
Role in the process:
Stakeholder representing all surfers (wave, wind, kite)
Advising government
Influence the decision making

7. Lessons learned
Awareness of decision making processes
Timing; when to get involved
Time consuming and bureaucratic
Fear
Lack of commitment from the government institutions
Slow decision making so less results
Little influence on final design
Surfing/recreation VS nature interests
Positive result as a small stakeholder in a huge project

8. Results

9. Results
Great surf spot with no official access yet
Experience for future projects
Learned to be more proactive and to be included in the process
earlier
Surfing included in policy
SFH got included as commission member and in an advising
board in a new project
Policy makers aware of surfers as stakeholder