Kota Balikpapan

Eco Mining DataMining · Eco Watch

Kota Balikpapan · Region · Eco Mining Data

SDG scorecard

Three axes, never merged into one number

74/100

83/100

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

Biggest gaps: SDG 6 (Significant challenges)

A · Context status

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

Reliability D2 of 12 indicators with data · oldest input 9 Aug 2026 · 1 out of date

River water quality (pollution index) · 6.3.2
3 inputs · 19 Oct 2026 · current^[7]
3.3 IPSignificant challenges · 74/100
Air quality (ISPU, proxy for PM2.5) · 11.6.2
2 inputs · 9 Aug 2026 · out of date^[8]
46.5 ISPUAchieved · 83/100
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 2019

Share of the area under mining permits · 15.1
–^[2]
0 %
Permits overlapping protected areas · 15.5
–^[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
22 inputs · 31 Dec 2019^[3]
102.9 ha
Mining footprint outside known permit boundaries (ESDM) · 15.3
22 inputs · 31 Dec 2019

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

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	–	103 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	–	103 ha	–	2026	C	Mining footprint: Cheng et al. 2026, Maus et al. 2022 (v2), ESMI digitised; counted once · 31 Dec 2022

Condition
Item	Value	Period	Grade	Source
Air quality (ISPU)	39.2 ISPU	2026	B	KLHK ISPU air-quality stations
Footprint share of land	0.2 %	2026

Land value

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

Land use	Value (P50, band)	Basis	Year	Grade	Source
Agriculture	Rp 15,531 (2,733–32,870)	Province 64 (fallback)	2023	D	Kompas: Ada Warga Terima Ganti Rugi Lahan IKN Rp 14.000 Per Meter · compensation · +1
Plantation	Rp 15,599 (5,359–39,250)	Island group (fallback)	2026	D	Poros Kalimantan: Ganti Rugi Pencemaran Lahan di Sebamban Capai Rp7.3 Miliar · compensation · +1
Other land	Rp 223,445 (103,742–472,895)	Province 64 (fallback)	2023	D	Kompas: Silang Sengkarut Ganti Rugi Lahan Warga di IKN · compensation
Degraded mining land · model value	Rp 0 (0–12,082)	Model	2023	D	Kompas: Ada Warga Terima Ganti Rugi Lahan IKN Rp 14.000 Per Meter · compensation · +1

Model: comparable agriculture land Rp 15,531/m² minus expected reclamation ≈ Rp 20,540/m² (commodity unknown). Reclamation costs more than the land is worth: net −Rp 9,499/m², so its value is 0 (74% 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)

Value after restoration

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

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 116 mP10–P90 −Rp 47.8 m – Rp 309 mgrade D

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

Land counted: 4.5 ha · abandoned, still bare or water
Payback: 2 yrs
Gain per rupiah of cost: 0.37×

Footprint measure

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

Net gain

Rp 94 mP10–P90 −Rp 96.4 m – Rp 319 mgrade D

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

Land counted: 5.3 ha · abandoned, still bare or water
Payback: 2 yrs
Gain per rupiah of cost: 0.26×

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.

Measure

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. 0.3 ha still bare and 4.2 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 value−Rp 427 mP10–P90 −Rp 1.06 bn – Rp 538 mgrade D
Value after restorationmodel valueRp 369 mP10–P90 Rp 98.6–780 mgrade D

The value now is negative: the land is worth less than nothing until it is reclaimed. That is shown but not counted as gain; the restoration costs are counted instead.

Gain in land valuemodel valueRp 230 mP10–P90 Rp 81.5–410 mgrade D
Ecosystem servicesmodel valueRp 124 mP10–P90 Rp 83.3–176 mgrade D
Carbon−Rp 1.7 mP10–P90 −Rp 3.35 m – Rp 766,072grade D
Avoided downstream impactsmodel valueRp 73 mP10–P90 Rp 39.2–124 mgrade D
Restoration costsRp 315 mP10–P90 Rp 268–371 mgrade D
Remediation

Shown, not added

Plan income (capitalised)model valueRp 76.8 mP10–P90 Rp 52.2–114 mgrade D
Reclamation duty dischargedRp 1.03 bnP10–P90 Rp 665 m – Rp 1.5 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.	4.5 ha	Rp 116 mP10–P90 −Rp 47.8 m – Rp 309 mgrade 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 305 mgrade D61 %
CooperativePlan income above the land value and the community share of carbon (80 % stays in the cooperative).Rp 959,090grade D0 %
Village fund20 % of the community share goes to the village fund.Rp 239,773grade D0 %
Government and the publicEcosystem services and avoided downstream impacts.Rp 196 mgrade D39 %
Project developerThe rest of the carbon value.Rp 799,242grade D0 %

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 95.1 m/haP10–P90 −Rp 237 m/ha – Rp 120 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 82.3 m/haP10–P90 Rp 22–174 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 17.1 m/haP10–P90 Rp 11.6–25.4 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.

Ecosystem servicesmodel valueNon-market value of the restored land, such as water regulation and habitat (benefit transfer from de Groot et al. 2012).	Rp 27.6 m/haP10–P90 Rp 18.6–39.2 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 378,736/haP10–P90 −Rp 745,621/ha – Rp 170,649/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 29.3 m/haP10–P90 Rp 25.1–34.1 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 35.5 m/haP10–P90 Rp 29.5–43.2 m/hagrade D	Restoration Studio option costs (planting, seedlings, compost) of the plan mix

Restoration costsRemediation and planting, plus a contingency.	Rp 70.1 m/haP10–P90 Rp 59.7–82.7 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 230 m/haP10–P90 Rp 148–334 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 25.9 m/haP10–P90 −Rp 10.7 m/ha – Rp 68.8 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

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.	5.3 ha	Rp 94 mP10–P90 −Rp 96.4 m – Rp 319 mgrade D

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 95.1 m/haP10–P90 −Rp 237 m/ha – Rp 120 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 77.6 m/haP10–P90 Rp 17.6–164 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 12.6 m/haP10–P90 Rp 8.59–18.8 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 valueValue after restoration minus today's use value (a negative value now counts as zero).	Rp 47.1 m/haP10–P90 Rp 13.3–85.7 m/hagrade D	(value after − today's use value, a negative value counted as 0), realised in year 2 and discounted
Ecosystem servicesmodel valueNon-market value of the restored land, such as water regulation and habitat (benefit transfer from de Groot et al. 2012).	Rp 24.1 m/haP10–P90 Rp 16.2–34.2 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 873,732/haP10–P90 −Rp 1.06 m/ha – −Rp 601,043/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 27.1 m/haP10–P90 Rp 23.2–31.5 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 36.8 m/haP10–P90 Rp 30.6–44.8 m/hagrade D	Restoration Studio option costs (planting, seedlings, compost) of the plan mix
Restoration costsRemediation and planting, plus a contingency.	Rp 69.2 m/haP10–P90 Rp 58.7–81.8 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 230 m/haP10–P90 Rp 148–334 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 17.7 m/haP10–P90 −Rp 18.2 m/ha – Rp 60.1 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

Show the numbers

Year	Mining ground	Bare ground	Water	Built-up	Farmland	Tree crops	Shrubs	Forest
1990	0	1	2	1	7	1	90	133
1991	0	2	2	1	6	1	73	151
1992	0	1	2	1	7	1	72	151
1993	0	0	2	1	8	1	73	150
1994	0	0	2	1	8	1	74	149
1995	0	0	1	1	8	9	77	138
1996	0	0	1	1	7	14	99	114
1997	0	0	1	1	7	14	112	99
1998	0	0	1	1	6	14	186	27
1999	0	0	1	1	6	12	199	16
2000	0	0	1	1	6	12	201	14
2001	0	0	1	1	4	11	204	14
2002	0	0	1	1	7	11	203	13
2003	0	0	1	1	7	14	200	13
2004	0	0	1	1	6	14	201	13
2005	0	3	0	1	7	10	202	11
2006	3	19	1	1	9	8	187	8
2007	3	29	1	1	8	7	181	4
2008	1	43	1	1	11	4	170	4
2009	1	42	1	1	13	4	169	4
2010	2	38	1	1	14	4	170	4
2011	1	38	1	1	16	3	170	4
2012	1	39	1	11	15	0	165	4
2013	17	20	1	12	15	0	167	4
2014	21	21	0	12	13	0	164	4
2015	66	16	0	12	6	0	132	3
2016	78	13	0	13	7	0	124	1
2017	92	15	0	16	6	0	106	1
2018	92	11	9	16	8	0	100	1
2019	92	10	10	16	7	0	99	1
2020	92	14	9	18	7	0	94	1
2021	95	13	9	17	7	0	92	1
2022	101	4	7	21	8	0	93	1
2023	100	3	8	21	12	0	91	1
2024	95	3	8	21	17	0	91	1
2025	93	0	7	21	21	22	69	1

Mining ground
Bare ground
Water
Built-up
Farmland
Tree crops
Shrubs
Forest

Peak mining 101 ha in 2022. In 2025: mining ground 93 ha, shrubs 69 ha, tree crops 22 ha.

Show the numbers

Year	Bare ground	Water	Built-up	Farmland	Tree crops	Shrubs	Forest
1990	1	2	1	7	1	90	133
1991	2	2	1	6	1	73	151
1992	1	2	1	7	1	72	151
1993	0	2	1	8	1	73	150
1994	0	2	1	8	1	74	149
1995	0	1	1	8	9	77	138
1996	0	1	1	7	14	99	114
1997	0	1	1	7	14	112	99
1998	0	1	1	6	14	186	27
1999	0	1	1	6	12	199	16
2000	0	1	1	6	12	201	14
2001	0	1	1	4	11	204	14

SDG scorecard

A · Context status

B · Target gap and trend

C · Mining

Facts

Mining footprint

Per source (own polygons)

Forest loss

Per year (last ten)

Questions about this area

Impact Ledger

Air above the smelter

Land value

Recovery after mining

Area by status

Key years

Status per polygon

Value after restoration

From value now to net gain

Shown, not added

By permit zone

Who benefits

From value now to net gain

Permits

Permit holders

Timeline

Media timeline

News river

Observations

What we don't know yet

Sources

Media timeline

News river

Land value

Value after restoration

From value now to net gain

Shown, not added

By permit zone

Who benefits

From value now to net gain

Questions about this area

Impact Ledger

Shown, not added

By permit zone

Who benefits

Air above the smelter

Recovery after mining

Area by status

Key years

Status per polygon