Kabupaten Sumbawa · Region · Eco Mining Data

Eco Mining DataMining · Eco Watch

Under permit

37,354ha^[2]

Ending within 12 months

2^[1]

SDG scorecard

Three axes, never merged into one number

20/100

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

Biggest gaps: SDG 6 (Major challenges)

A · Context status

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

Reliability D1 of 12 indicators with data · oldest input 20 Oct 2026

River water quality (pollution index) · 6.3.2
5 inputs · 20 Oct 2026 · current^[6]
8.2 IPMajor challenges · 20/100
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
—
Lower-secondary completion rate · 4.1.2
Data gap · source not connected yet · Needs: BPS Indikator TPB / PODES · planned in S2
—
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
—
Forest cover and annual loss · 15.1.1
Data gap · source not connected yet · Needs: Hansen GFC / MapBiomas Indonesia · planned in S2
—
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 B4 of 8 indicators with data · oldest input 31 Dec 2021

Share of the area under mining permits · 15.1
69 inputs · 18 Oct 2026 · current^[2]
5.6 %
Permits overlapping protected areas · 15.5
18 Oct 2026 · current^[2]
0 ha
Mercury / ASGM sites (unconfirmed signals) · 12.4
Visible with a free account
ASGM signals outside any permit · 15.3
Visible with a free account
Mining footprint (satellite) · 15.3
5 inputs · 31 Dec 2021^[3]
32.4 ha
Mining footprint outside known permit boundaries (ESDM) · 15.3

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

Facts

Level: regency^[4]
Area: 664,647 ha^[4]
BPS code: 52.04^[4]
Boundary version: BPS-Kemendagri bridging 2025_1.2025 (sig.bps.go.id); geometry COD-AB IDN v01 2020-04-01^[4]

Mining footprint

Physical land disturbance mapped from imagery (2019–2021). Pollution is measured separately and is not included.

Mining footprint (satellite, 2019–2021): 32.4 ha^[3]
Inside known permits (ESDM): 0 ha
Outside known permit boundaries (ESDM): 32.4 ha^[3]
Share of the area: 0 %
Footprint polygons: 5

Per source (own polygons)

Cheng et al. 2026 (2017–2022, land-use classes): 32.3 ha · 4
Maus et al. 2022 (2019 imagery): 265.4 ha · 1

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

Outside known permit boundaries is not a finding of illegality: it can be a gap in the ESDM permit layer, an older or expired permit, or another land use.

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: 35,740.3 ha^[5]
Of which 2021–2025: 8,143.1 ha^[5]
Tree cover in 2000: 449,668 ha
Share of the 2000 tree cover: 7.9 %

Per year (last ten)

2016: 1,647.1 ha
2017: 2,112.5 ha
2018: 2,155 ha
2019: 2,508.7 ha
2020: 1,978.2 ha
2021: 1,522.4 ha
2022: 1,319.7 ha
2023: 2,494.5 ha
2024: 1,691 ha
2025: 1,115.6 ha

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.

Questions about this area

Precomputed answers from Eco Mining Data, with source, date and grade. Gaps say what is missing.

Impact Ledger

Natural-capital account (SEEA-EA style): stock, condition and change, physical units.

Extent
Item	Opening	Closing	Change	Period	Grade	Source
Mining footprint	–	32.4 ha	–	2026	C	Mining footprint: Cheng et al. 2026, Maus et al. 2022 (v2), ESMI digitised; counted once · 31 Dec 2022
Footprint inside permits	–	0 ha	–	2026	C	Mining footprint: Cheng et al. 2026, Maus et al. 2022 (v2), ESMI digitised; counted once · 31 Dec 2022
Footprint outside known permits	–	32.4 ha	–	2026	C	Mining footprint: Cheng et al. 2026, Maus et al. 2022 (v2), ESMI digitised; counted once · 31 Dec 2022
Permit area	–	37,422 ha	–	2026	B	Kementerian ESDM — Minerba concession register (geoportal) · 18 Oct 2026
Permits in protected areas	–	0 ha	–	2026	C

Air above the smelter

Regency mean compared with the background of its island group

Grade C

Satellite column density, not air at ground level. Sentinel-5P (TROPOMI) measures the amount of NO₂ and SO₂ in the whole air column. The figure is the ENHANCEMENT over the surrounding background, not a ground-level concentration and not a health exposure value. The zone is named by place; this is not a finding about any company.

0.15 × 10¹⁵ molecules/cm² NO₂ above backgroundmean of the newest 12 months (to 2026-09), ± 0.01 (1 SE, statistical)No significant trend (0.00 per year, p = 0.076, 9 years)

Monthly NO₂ enhancement (thin), 12-month running mean (bold), ± 1 SE band; 0 = background

SO₂ for this place is not available yet (sampled orbits still being processed).

The ±SE is statistical only; the retrieval (air-mass factor) uncertainty is 25–50 % for NO₂ and larger for small SO₂ columns. No wind data is used yet: the background ring covers all directions. Sources: KNMI TEMIS monthly TROPOMI NO₂ v1.0; Copernicus Sentinel-5P OFFL L2 SO₂ via Microsoft Planetary Computer.

Land value

Kabupaten Sumbawa · Rp per m², market-equivalent today: P50 with the P10–P90 band

Land use	Value (P50, band)	Basis	Year	Grade	Source
Agriculture	Rp 50,903 (21,165–107,730)	Province 52 (fallback)	2026	D	Tribuntipikor: AMNT Melibatkan Calo Tanah Bebaskan Proyek Belt Conveyor Dodo · compensation · +1
Plantation	Rp 7,034 (2,220–22,292)	National (fallback)	2014 stale	D	BPS SOUT 2014 kelapa sawit (via Bisnis.com 24 Dec 2014) · capitalised rent
Degraded mining land · model value	Rp 23,558 (0–82,642)	Model	2026	D	Tribuntipikor: AMNT Melibatkan Calo Tanah Bebaskan Proyek Belt Conveyor Dodo · compensation · +1

Model: comparable agriculture land Rp 50,903/m² minus expected reclamation ≈ Rp 23,592/m² (gold/copper). Net value after reclamation ≈ Rp 23,558/m² (19% of model runs negative).

NJOP and compensation values are converted to market-equivalent and older years CPI-indexed. A fallback value is borrowed from a wider area and has a wider band and a lower grade. Not an appraisal. · landvalue.v1 · API (observations: Tier 1)

Recovery after mining

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

Managed restoration

After mining, most of the land became farmland or tree crops, or vegetation came back fast and evenly, as after planting.

Footprint polygons: 2
Ever disturbed: 7.3 ha
Vegetation back: 6.4 ha
Abandoned ≥ 5 years, still bare or water: 0 ha
Outside known permit boundaries (ESDM): 17 ha

Figures are sums over all polygons; the status of a group is the status with the largest area. This can be a gap in the ESDM permit layer or an older or expired permit: the layer lists current permits only.

Area by status

Actively mined0.4 ha 2 %
Natural regrowth0.2 ha 1 %
Managed restoration6.2 ha 36 %
Converted to other use0.5 ha 3 %
Not visible at 30 m9.8 ha 57 %

Key years

First mining: 2018
Peak mining: –
Last mining: 2019
Mining stopped: 2020 · 6 years ago

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

Value after restoration

What restoring abandoned mining land that is still bare or water could be worth, in rupiah. Figures for Kabupaten Sumbawa.

Model estimate, not an appraisal.

MapBiomas mining-class measure

Every 30 m pixel that MapBiomas ever labelled as a mining pit and that is now abandoned and still bare or water.

Net gain

−Rp 600 mP10–P90 −Rp 4.77 bn – Rp 1.07 bngrade D

Net present value over 25 years at 10 % a year.

Land counted: 21 ha · abandoned, still bare or water
Payback: 11 yrs
Gain per rupiah of cost: -0.21×

Footprint measure

Land inside the mapped mining footprint polygons that is abandoned and still bare or water.

No abandoned bare or water land in this measure here.

The two measures overlap. They are shown side by side and never added together. tn = trillion, bn = billion, m = million (rupiah). The letter after a figure is its grade (A best, D a rough model estimate); the range is P10–P90.

MapBiomas mining-class measure · Every 30 m pixel that MapBiomas ever labelled as a mining pit and that is now abandoned and still bare or water. 4.1 ha still bare and 17 ha water (pit lakes).

From value now to net gain

Value now → value after restoration, plus what restoration adds for everyone, minus the costs, gives the net gain.

Value now (degraded land)model valueRp 4.87 bnP10–P90 −Rp 1.61 bn – Rp 17 bngrade D
Value after restorationmodel valueRp 6.3 bnP10–P90 Rp 2.69–13.3 bngrade D

Gain in land valuemodel valueRp 1.18 bnP10–P90 −Rp 3.08 bn – Rp 2.64 bngrade D
Ecosystem servicesmodel valueRp 800 mP10–P90 Rp 537 m – Rp 1.13 bngrade D
CarbonRp 22.2 mP10–P90 Rp 3.42–50.4 mgrade D
Avoided downstream impactsmodel valueRp 337 mP10–P90 Rp 181–574 mgrade D
Restoration costsRp 2.8 bnP10–P90 Rp 2.36–3.31 bngrade D

Shown, not added

Plan income (capitalised)model valueRp 586 mP10–P90 Rp 399–870 mgrade D
Reclamation duty dischargedRp 5.47 bnP10–P90 Rp 3.52–7.93 bngrade D

By permit zone

Permit zone	Land	Net gain
Inside an expired or revoked permit: reclamation duty applies	–	–
Inside an active permit	–	–
Inside a permit with another statusPending, suspended or unknown status.	–	–
Outside known permit boundaries (ESDM)This can be a gap in the ESDM permit layer or an older permit: the layer lists current permits only.	21 ha	−Rp 600 mP10–P90 −Rp 4.77 bn – Rp 1.07 bngrade D

Who benefits

How the benefits are shared, before costs (median path). Benefit-sharing defaults from the Restoration Studio: 80 % cooperative, 20 % village fund.

LandownerThe gain in land value.Rp 1.18 bngrade D50 %
CooperativePlan income above the land value and the community share of carbon (80 % stays in the cooperative).Rp 17.7 mgrade D1 %
Village fund20 % of the community share goes to the village fund.Rp 4.43 mgrade D0 %
Government and the publicEcosystem services and avoided downstream impacts.Rp 1.13 bngrade D48 %
Project developerThe rest of the carbon value.Rp 14.8 mgrade D1 %

Source and grade of every part

Part	Per hectare	Source
Value now (degraded land)model valueToday's use value of the degraded land: comparable land value minus the cost of reclamation. It can be negative. A negative value is shown but not counted as gain, because the restoration costs are counted below.	Rp 235 m/haP10–P90 −Rp 77.9 m/ha – Rp 824 m/hagrade D	Eco Mining Data land value: degraded mining land = comparable value − reclamation cost (model value, not floored at zero)
Value after restorationmodel valueThe larger of the comparable land value and the capitalised plan income, never both.	Rp 305 m/haP10–P90 Rp 130–643 m/hagrade D	The larger of (b) the comparable land value (agriculture/plantation; pit lakes × water factor) and (a) the capitalised plan income
Plan income (capitalised)model valueIncome of a default restoration plan (forest, agroforestry, cassava fields, fish cages in pit lakes) over 25 years, discounted. Used in the value after restoration only when it is the larger of the two.	Rp 28.3 m/haP10–P90 Rp 19.3–42 m/hagrade D	Restoration Studio option economics (Sulawesi Utara price table applied nationally), default plan mix per commodity; present value of operating income over the plan period
Gain in land valuemodel value

National overview Recovery status after mining

Model estimate, not an appraisal. Eco Mining Data model restorevalue.v1: 2,000 Monte Carlo draws, run of 20 October 2026. Bands are P10–P90.

Permits

Visible with a free account · Permit list and numbersSign in

Permit holders

Holder names come from the public ESDM permit register. They are register facts, not findings.

PT Intam^[7]
1 permits
14,627 ha
PT Selatan Arc Minerals^[7]
1 permits
9,629 ha
PT Sumbawa Jutaraya^[7]
1 permits
8,705 ha
PT Asiapasifik Aristama Entebe^[7]
1 permits
3,064 ha
PT Ngali Sumbawa Mining^[7]
1 permits
188 ha
PT Basai Ate Lestari^[7]
3 permits
35 ha
CV Cv Aldzapaqo Sukses^[7]
2 permits
11 ha
LANTUNG MANDIRI BERSATU^[7]
1 permits
10 ha
KOPERASI Salonong Bukit Lestari

Timeline

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

Visible to verified organisations · Unconfirmed signals in your regionSign in

Media timeline

What was reported, month by month. Headlines as published; events stay signals until a person confirms them.

5 articles · 1 event

News rivernegative eventpositive eventneutral event

Source

News river

9 Jun 2026
Ratusan Warga Padati Lokasi Tambang Ilegal di Lantung Sumbawa, Bahaya Mengintai - Kompas.com
Kompas.comNational mediaReliability 2
21 Jan 2026
PLN tanam 30.000 pohon perkuat rehabilitasi DAS Manni di Sumbawa - ANTARA News Mataram
ANTARA News MataramRegional mediaReliability 1
9 Oct 2025
Pemprov Ungkap Kendala Penerbitan IPR 15 Blok Tambang di Lombok dan Sumbawa - detikcom
detikcomNational mediaReliability 2
16 Jul 2025
Walhi Kritik Penerbitan Izin Tambang Rakyat di Sumbawa: Jangan Lihat Uang Saja - detikcom
detikcomNational mediaReliability 2
16 Jun 2025
Warga Pesisir Utara Sumbawa Lakukan Aksi Restorasi dan Rehabilitasi Hutan Mangrove - Kompas.com
Kompas.comNational mediaReliability 2

Headline, outlet and date as published, with a link to the original. Event summaries are our own words.

Observations

Latest reading per station in the region

Visible with a free account · Measurements per stationSign in

What we don't know yet

19 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
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
Forest cover and annual loss
Needs: Hansen GFC / MapBiomas Indonesia
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

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 2021 · 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.
Indonesia administrative regions (seed) · github.com · as of 1 Jan 2025 · confirmed · geometry: CC BY 3.0 IGO; codes: BPS public data (open; attribution: Badan Pusat Statistik)
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 / Status Mutu Air · onlimo.kemenlh.go.id · as of 22 Oct 2026 · signal · public-sector data (attribution; terms review pending)
Kementerian ESDM geoportal (Minerba / Monaresia Wilayah Pertambangan), via legacy Eco Mining Data harvest

Ecosystem servicesmodel valueNon-market value of the restored land, such as water regulation and habitat (benefit transfer from de Groot et al. 2012).	Rp 38.7 m/haP10–P90 Rp 26–54.8 m/hagrade D	de Groot, R. et al. 2012. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services 1: 50-61 (biome means). Benefits transferred at 0.25-1× the mean (most likely 0.5). Cultivated land: no extra non-market value counted.

CarbonCarbon credits from replanting, after buffer, leakage and uncertainty deductions, at a placeholder price.	Rp 1.07 m/haP10–P90 Rp 165,121/ha – Rp 2.44 m/hagrade D	Restoration Studio carbon profiles × (1 − buffer − leakage − uncertainty) × carbon price, minus measurement and issuance costs

Avoided downstream impactsmodel valueAvoided sediment, flooding and water-treatment costs downstream. A model value, not a measurement.	Rp 16.3 m/haP10–P90 Rp 8.73–27.7 m/hagrade D	MODEL value: avoided sediment, flooding and water-treatment costs downstream of restored mining land, Rp/ha/yr. No Indonesian per-hectare study found; ESMI assumption, to be replaced by causal estimates.

RemediationRegrading, soil and water testing, labour, and POCO compost with microbes where metals are expected.	Rp 92.4 m/haP10–P90 Rp 75.6–113 m/hagrade D	Restoration Studio remediation costs: regrading, XRF and lab sampling, labour, POCO + microbes on the share of land with metals

PlantingSeedlings, compost and planting for the plan mix.	Rp 32.4 m/haP10–P90 Rp 26.9–39.4 m/hagrade D	Restoration Studio option costs (planting, seedlings, compost) of the plan mix

Restoration costsRemediation and planting, plus a contingency.	Rp 135 m/haP10–P90 Rp 114–160 m/hagrade D	Remediation + planting + contingency

Reclamation duty dischargedThe reclamation duty that restoration would discharge. It is a transfer between parties (who pays): shown, not added to the gain.	Rp 264 m/haP10–P90 Rp 170–383 m/hagrade D	Reclamation standard (Kepmen ESDM 344.K/MB.01/MEM.B/2025, IKK-adjusted): the duty restoration discharges. A TRANSFER (who pays), not added to the gain

Net gainmodel valueGain in land value + ecosystem services + carbon + avoided downstream impacts − restoration costs.	−Rp 29 m/haP10–P90 −Rp 230 m/ha – Rp 51.9 m/hagrade D	Net gain = (value after − today's use value) + ecosystem services + carbon + avoided downstream impacts − costs; present value, model estimate, not an appraisal

Condition
Item	Value	Period	Grade	Source
Footprint share of land	0 %	2026	C	Mining footprint: Cheng et al. 2026, Maus et al. 2022 (v2), ESMI digitised; counted once · 31 Dec 2022
River pollution index	5.7 IP	2026	B	KLHK Onlimo river water-quality stations (Indeks Pencemaran)

Bare ground
Built-up
Farmland
Forest

No mining ground seen at 30 m. In 2025: farmland 9 ha, forest 7.5 ha, built-up 0.5 ha.

Show the numbers

Year	Farmland	Forest
1990	0	17
1991	0	17
1992	0	17
1993	0	17
1994	0	17
1995	0	17
1996	0	17
1997	0	17
1998	0	17
1999	0	17
2000	0	17
2001	0	17
2002	0	17
2003	0	17
2004	0	17
2005	0	17
2006	0	17
2007	0	17
2008	0	17
2009	0	17
2010	1	17