| 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 13.4 bnP10–P90 −Rp 288 m – Rp 182 bngrade 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 17.8 bnP10–P90 Rp 10.1–129 bngrade 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 2.2 bnP10–P90 Rp 1.5–3.27 bngrade 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 1.84 bnP10–P90 −Rp 43.7 bn – Rp 2.46 bngrade 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 3.23 bnP10–P90 Rp 2.17–4.59 bngrade 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 185 mP10–P90 Rp 86.5–333 mgrade 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 948 mP10–P90 Rp 509 m – Rp 1.62 bngrade 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 2.48 bnP10–P90 Rp 2.12–2.91 bngrade 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 1.62 bnP10–P90 Rp 1.34–1.97 bngrade D | Restoration Studio option costs (planting, seedlings, compost) of the plan mix |
|---|
| Restoration costsRemediation and planting, plus a contingency. | Rp 4.44 bnP10–P90 Rp 3.8–5.19 bngrade 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 11 bnP10–P90 Rp 7.08–16 bngrade 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 382 mP10–P90 −Rp 44 bn – Rp 3.36 bngrade D | Net gain = (value after − today's use value) + ecosystem services + carbon + avoided downstream impacts − costs; present value, model estimate, not an appraisal |
|---|
