PT Sandeir Setia Brothers

Eco Mining DataMining · Eco Watch

PT Sandeir Setia Brothers · Company · Eco Mining Data

Under permit

228ha^[2]

Ending within 12 months

0^[1]

SDG scorecard

Three axes, never merged into one number

29/100

30/100

8 more goals have no data yet (see “What we don’t know yet”).

Biggest gaps: SDG 6 (Significant challenges) · SDG 15 (Significant challenges)

A · Context status

How the area is doing on measured SDG indicators (SDSN normalisation, 0–100).

Reliability D3 of 14 indicators with data · oldest input 31 Dec 2025

River water quality (pollution index) · 6.3.2
2 inputs · 21 Oct 2026 · current^[7]
4.8 IPSignificant challenges · 58/100
Air quality (ISPU, proxy for PM2.5) · 11.6.2
Data gap · no data for this subject
—
Population below the national poverty line · 1.2.1
Data gap · source not connected yet · Needs: BPS Susenas (regency) / SDGs Desa · planned in S2
—
Stunting in children under five · 2.2.1
Data gap · source not connected yet · Needs: SKI / Riskesdas (Kemenkes) · planned in S2
—
Mortality from air pollution · 3.9.1
Data gap · source not connected yet · Needs: CAMS / Sentinel-5P exposure + GBD · planned in S2
—
NO₂ in the air above background (satellite) · 11.6.2
Data gap · no data for this subject
—
Lower-secondary completion rate · 4.1.2
Data gap · source not connected yet · Needs: BPS Indikator TPB / PODES · planned in S2
—
River stations above the pollution limit · 6.3.2
2 inputs · 21 Oct 2026 · current^[7]
100 %Major challenges · 0/100
Households with safe drinking water · 6.1.1
Data gap · source not connected yet · Needs: PODES (BPS) / SDGs Desa · planned in S2
—
Access to electricity · 7.1.1
Data gap · source not connected yet · Needs: PODES (BPS) / VIIRS night lights · planned in S2
—
Unemployment rate · 8.5.2
Data gap · source not connected yet · Needs: BPS Sakernas (regency) · planned in S2
—
Coastal sediment and tailings plumes · 14.1.1
Data gap · source not connected yet · Needs: Sentinel-2/3 plume detection · planned in S2
—
Tree cover left (canopy in 2000 minus loss since) · 15.1.1
3 inputs · 31 Dec 2025 · current^[6]
29.9 %Significant challenges · 30/100
Degraded land (UNCCD method) · 15.3.1
Data gap · source not connected yet · Needs: Trends.Earth (land cover, productivity, soil carbon) · planned in S2
—

B · Target gap and trend

Distance to RPJMN 2025–2029 / RAD TPB targets and the trend per indicator.

Reliability D0 of 2 indicators with data

Distance to RPJMN 2025-2029 / RAD TPB targets
Data gap · source not connected yet · Needs: Indikator TPB metadata (Bappenas) + RAD TPB per province/regency · planned in S2
—
Trend per indicator (on track / moderate / stagnating / decreasing)
Data gap · source not connected yet · Needs: Yearly series of the axis A indicators · planned in S2
—

C · Mining

Exposure to mining, shown raw. Not attribution: the causal model (DiD, synthetic control) follows in S3.

Reliability C4 of 10 indicators with data · oldest input 31 Dec 2019

Permits overlapping protected areas · 15.5
18 Oct 2026 · current^[2]
0 ha
Mercury / ASGM sites (unconfirmed signals) · 12.4
Visible to trusted partners
Mining footprint (satellite) · 15.3
14 inputs · 31 Dec 2019^[3]
68.6 ha
Reclamation gap (disturbed minus reclaimed) · 15.3
Visible with a free account
Forest lost in the last 5 data years · 15.2
3 inputs · 31 Dec 2025 · current^[6]
36.7 ha
Permits within 5 km of mangrove · 14.2

No imputation: an indicator without data stays visibly empty. Goalposts and thresholds are in the indicator register.

Facts

Permits held: 3

Who owns this

From this company up to its group and down to its permits. Every link shows where it comes from and how sure we are.

Registered holder

PT Sandeir Setia BrothersConfidence C

PT
3 permits

The name in the official permit register. That is not always the company that owns the business.

Beneficial owner (the people behind it)

Not available

The beneficial owner register of the Indonesian company authority (AHU / OSS) is only open under a formal agreement. Until then we do not guess names.

AHU: how to apply for access

Where does the ore go

From the mines of this company to the industrial parks that most likely process their ore. What we know, what we infer and what we cannot see are kept apart.

No processing sites known for this metal yet

For kaolin, pasir-kuarsa we do not yet know the processing sites, so no chain can be drawn. Nickel is covered first.

Export, buyers and ships need a key

These stages stay empty until a key is in place. We show the gap instead of guessing.

UN ComtradeYearly exports by product and destination country.Waiting for a key
Get a key · UN Comtrade
aisstream.ioShips calling at the jetties, from live ship positions.Waiting for a key
Get a key · aisstream.io

Mining footprint

Physical land disturbance mapped from imagery (2019). Pollution is measured separately and is not included.

Mining footprint (satellite, 2019): 68.6 ha^[3]
Inside this permit area: 68.6 ha
Share of the area: 30.1 %
Footprint polygons: 14

Per source (own polygons)

Cheng et al. 2026 (2017–2022, land-use classes): 68.5 ha · 11^[4]
Maus et al. 2022 (2019 imagery): 178.2 ha · 3^[5]

The total counts land once where sources overlap (Cheng et al. 2026, then Maus et al. 2022, then ESMI digitised).

Forest loss

Tree-cover loss 2001–2025, where tree cover in 2000 was at least 30 %. Annual satellite data (Hansen / University of Maryland).

Tree-cover loss 2001–2025: 156.6 ha^[6]
Of which 2021–2025: 36.7 ha^[6]
Tree cover in 2000: 225 ha
Share of the 2000 tree cover: 69.6 %

Per year (last ten)

2016: 7 ha
2017: 2 ha
2018: 5.2 ha
2019: 4.3 ha
2020: 2.9 ha
2021: 10 ha
2022: 5.5 ha
2023: 9.6 ha
2024: 8.3 ha
2025: 3.3 ha

Adds up the 3 permits of this company; where permits overlap, the loss counts twice.

Loss means tree cover was removed: clearing, but also plantation harvest or fire. It is not a finding of illegal deforestation, and the data is yearly, not monthly.

Recovery after mining

What the land inside the mining footprint looks like from space, year by year (1990–2025)

Actively mined

Mining ground was still seen in the last few years.

Footprint polygons: 5
Ever disturbed: 44 ha
Vegetation back: 7.8 ha
Abandoned ≥ 5 years, still bare or water: 6.3 ha

Figures are sums over all polygons; the status of a group is the status with the largest area.

Area by status

Actively mined29 ha 65 %
Abandoned, bare ground0.3 ha 1 %
Abandoned, water-filled pit6.4 ha 14 %
Natural regrowth1.3 ha 3 %
Managed restoration6.5 ha 15 %
Not visible at 30 m1.1 ha 2 %

Key years

First mining: 1998
Peak mining: 2019
Last mining: 2025
Mining stopped: –

Status per polygon

Free account · Status per polygon, with confidence, the rule that decided it and its life history, needs a free account.

Show on the map National overview

Satellite land cover, not reported reclamation: ESDM reclamation reports are not used. Sources: MapBiomas Indonesia Collection 5 (30 m, CC BY-SA 4.0), JRC Tropical Moist Forest; footprint Maus et al. 2022 and Cheng et al. 2026 (CC BY-SA 4.0); ESDM MODI permit layer. Method rec-1.0 · computed Oct 19, 2026

Promise versus reality

What was promised in public documents, next to what the satellite measures on the same land.

No sourced promises are registered for this company yet. Nothing is assumed: a promise appears here only after it was quoted from a public document and checked by a second reviewer.

Reclamation plans, PPKH obligations, reforestation commitments, sustainability-report targets and zero-deforestation pledges are measured against the recovery status and the forest-loss record of the same land.

How this is measured

A promise is a quote of a public document: the source link and its SHA-256 are shown, and it appears here only after review by a second person.
Delivered is the gain in revegetated land since the year of the promise, from the yearly land-cover maps (MapBiomas, to –) on the footprint polygons of the permit or company. Land that is mined again counts against it.
A per-year plan is multiplied by the years in its period. If the deadline lies beyond the data, the amount due is the linear share up to the last data year, and the state is on pace or behind, never missed.
The grade compares delivered with due: A from 90%, B from 70%, C from 40%, D below. The range follows the promise year plus or minus one year, because the maps are yearly.
A zero-deforestation pledge looks at tree-cover loss (Hansen, to –) in the years after the pledge year: A none, B within the noise (1 ha or 0.1% of the tree cover), C up to 1%, D more.
Next to the grade you see the mined land today, new tree-cover loss and how much land was opened versus reclaimed. Before and after frames come from the time machine.

A grade compares a number in a document with a number from space. It does not judge intent or legality.

Company profile and coverage

What is realistically knowable for this kind of company, what we have, and what is still missing

Coverage has not been computed for this company yet.

Visible with a free account · company profile (identifiers, PROPER, EITI)Sign in

Permits

Visible with a free account · Permit list and numbersSign in

Timeline

Visible with a free account · Timeline: permit changes, confirmed alerts, newsSign in

Own statements vs independent coverage

Own statements are published by the organisation itself (press releases, IDX disclosures, its own website). Independent coverage comes from media, NGOs, courts, government and aggregators.

Own statement 0 own statements

No own statements found.

Independent 0 independent articles

No independent coverage found.

Mention volume

Articles per month that mention the organisation (last 36 months).

Tone over time

Average tone of the articles per month, from −1 (negative) to +1 (positive).

Right of reply

Incidents linked to this organisation after review, with its reply.

No reviewed incidents are linked to this organisation.

Observations

Latest reading per station in the region

Visible with a free account · Measurements per stationSign in

Financial and production figures

Company-published figures, not ESMI measurements.

History of this profile

Same log for everyone · nothing is deleted

No changes by the company yet.

What we don't know yet

24 gaps

Air quality (ISPU, proxy for PM2.5)
No data for this subject
Population below the national poverty line
Needs: BPS Susenas (regency) / SDGs Desa
Not connected yet
Stunting in children under five
Needs: SKI / Riskesdas (Kemenkes)
Not connected yet
Mortality from air pollution
Needs: CAMS / Sentinel-5P exposure + GBD
Not connected yet
NO₂ in the air above background (satellite)
No data for this subject
Lower-secondary completion rate
Needs: BPS Indikator TPB / PODES
Not connected yet
Households with safe drinking water
Needs: PODES (BPS) / SDGs Desa
Not connected yet
Access to electricity
Needs: PODES (BPS) / VIIRS night lights
Not connected yet
Unemployment rate
Needs: BPS Sakernas (regency)
Not connected yet
Coastal sediment and tailings plumes
Needs: Sentinel-2/3 plume detection
Not connected yet
Degraded land (UNCCD method)
Needs: Trends.Earth (land cover, productivity, soil carbon)
Not connected yet
Distance to RPJMN 2025-2029 / RAD TPB targets
Needs: Metadata Indikator TPB (Bappenas) + RAD TPB per province/regency
Not connected yet

Sources

Kementerian ESDM geoportal (Minerba / Monaresia Wilayah Pertambangan), via legacy Eco Mining Data harvest · geoportal.esdm.go.id · retrieved 18 Oct 2026 · signal · unknown
Eco Mining Data computation: current permit geometries (ESDM) × area; overlap with WDPA protected areas · computed by Eco Mining Data · as of 18 Oct 2026 · signal · derived from the ESDM permit layer and WDPA (WDPA terms apply)Union of current permit geometries clipped to the subject; intersection with protected-area polygons; geodesic area
Eco Mining Data computation: mining footprint (Cheng et al. 2026 · Maus et al. 2022 · ESMI digitised) × subject; inside and outside current ESDM permit geometries · doi.org · computed by Eco Mining Data · as of 31 Dec 2019 · signal · derived from Cheng et al. 2026 and Maus et al. 2022 (CC BY-SA 4.0), ESMI digitised land and the ESDM permit layerFootprint polygons clipped to the subject (geodesic area), counted once where sources overlap (Cheng > Maus > ESMI); the part inside the union of current permit geometries vs outside known permit boundaries (ESDM). Outside is not a finding of illegality: it can be a data gap or an older permit.
Cheng et al. 2026 · Mining land-use classes inside global mining polygons (South-Eastern Asia) · doi.org · as of 31 Dec 2022 · signal · CC BY-SA 4.0
Maus et al. 2022 · Global-scale mining polygons (Version 2) · doi.org · as of 31 Dec 2019 · signal · CC BY-SA 4.0
Hansen Global Forest Change GFC-2025-v1.13 · glad.earthengine.app · as of 31 Dec 2025 · confirmed · CC BY 4.0Hansen, M. C. et al. 2013. High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science 342: 850-53. Data: Global Forest Change 2000-2025 (v1.13), University of Maryland.
KLHK Onlimo water-quality monitoring, via legacy MI · retrieved 18 Oct 2026 · signal · unknown

Show the numbers

Year	Mining ground	Bare ground	Water	Built-up	Fish or shrimp ponds	Oil palm	Farmland	Tree crops	Shrubs	Forest
1990	3	103	0	0	0	4	224	3	371	532
1991	0	107	0	0	0	3	199	1	406	523
1992	0	116	0	0	0	4	154	3	444	520
1993	0	117	0	0	0	4	142	3	453	522
1994	0	113	0	0	0	4	130	3	468	523
1995	0	114	0	0	0	4	122	3	474	524
1996	0	110	0	0	0	4	99	3	499	525
1997	4	114	0	0	0	4	92	4	497	525
1998	15	90	0	0	0	4	62	4	540	526
1999	61	94	2	0	0	4	62	5	493	520
2000	78	88	2	0	0	4	66	5	480	518
2001	91	94	2	0	0	4	79	11	449	510
2002	144	65	2	0	0	4	100	16	406	505
2003	158	51	2	0	1	4	120	15	385	504
2004	232	59	2	0	3	4	145	16	295	485
2005	257	59	2	0	6	4	161	15	264	473
2006	304	65	3	0	8	4	178	10	224	444
2007	359	66	4	0	9	4	175	8	195	421
2008	438	97	4	0	9	4	167	3	151	367
2009	543	125	6	0	9	5	144	3	122	284
2010	599	75	7	0	9	5	163	1	109	272
2011	631	102	9	0	9	5	171	1	95	217
2012	711	84	10	2	10	6	171	1	83	163
2013	714	65	9	2	10	6	218	0	73	143
2014	748	73	9	2	10	6	217	0	59	116
2015	803	57	8	6	10	6	193	7	51	99
2016	771	73	15	6	10	8	221	7	53	77
2017	768	72	23	10	12	8	234	2	50	62
2018	824	67	26	10	16	8	211	3	47	29
2019	839	54	35	10	23	8	220	2	40	10
2020	761	50	46	10	26	9	298	0	33	8
2021	744	44	49	11	36	9	309	0	35	5
2022	700	31	52	12	43	9	351	3	36	4
2023	704	25	53	13	48	9	347	3	36	4
2024	570	24	58	15	58	10	453	3	46	5
2025	451	28	49	22	99	10	523	3	51	4

Mining ground
Bare ground
Water
Built-up
Fish or shrimp ponds
Oil palm
Farmland
Tree crops
Shrubs
Forest

Peak mining 839 ha in 2019. In 2025: farmland 523 ha, mining ground 451 ha, fish or shrimp ponds 99 ha.

Show the numbers

Year	Mining ground	Bare ground	Water	Fish or shrimp ponds	Oil palm	Farmland	Tree crops	Shrubs	Forest
1990	3	103	0	0	4	224	3	371	532
1991	0	107	0	0	3	199	1	406	523
1992	0	116	0	0	4	154	3	444	520
1993	0	117	0	0	4	142	3	453	522
1994	0	113	0	0	4	130	3	468	523
1995	0	114	0	0	4	122	3	474	524
1996	0	110	0	0	4	99	3	499	525
1997	4	114	0	0	4	92	4	497	525
1998	15	90	0	0	4	62	4	540	526
1999	61	94	2

Is this your company? Claim the profile for free with your registration number or work e-mail.

SDG scorecard

A · Context status

B · Target gap and trend

C · Mining

Facts

Who owns this

Where does the ore go

Mining footprint

Per source (own polygons)

Forest loss

Per year (last ten)

Recovery after mining

Area by status

Key years

Status per polygon

Promise versus reality

Company profile and coverage

Permits

Timeline

Own statements vs independent coverage

Own statement 0 own statements

Independent 0 independent articles

Mention volume

Tone over time

Right of reply

Observations

Financial and production figures

History of this profile

What we don't know yet

Sources

Promise versus reality

Where does the ore go

Own statements vs independent coverage

Own statement 0 own statements

Independent 0 independent articles

Mention volume

Tone over time

Right of reply

Media timeline

Recovery after mining

Area by status

Key years

Status per polygon

Who owns this

Holder changes