Just a month before leaving office, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, through his ministers, enacted regulations permitting the export of sea sand. This decision raises serious questions about the motives and urgency behind such a move, which is certain to have detrimental effects on the environment—particularly on the nation’s small islands—while also jeopardizing the livelihoods of fishermen.
Jokowi promised during his inauguration speech in October 2014 that Indonesia must not turn its back on the sea ever again. However, he has taken this promise literally to a new extreme. Now, he is facing the sea and snatching away whatever he can from it.
While Jokowi and his ministers are busy justifying the lifting of the sea sand export ban by claiming it’s not sand but sediment being removed to clear paths for ships, there seems to be only one plausible explanation for this hasty and reckless decision: money. In simpler terms, it is greed and the pursuit of short-term profit at the expense of the entire nation.
Neighboring Singapore reportedly needs around 4 billion cubic meters of sea sand by 2030, with prices ranging between US$18 to $20 per cubic meter. This means potential revenues could reach US$72 billion to $84 billion (or approximately IDR 1,000 trillion to 1,300 trillion) over that period, averaging around IDR 200 trillion per year.
We remain in the dark about how much the state will actually receive from such exports, as everything is shrouded in opacity. This is exactly why, as citizens, we must question and voice our suspicions.
As with other government ventures, those involved in the decision-making process might expect payment upfront. If, say, a 10 percent advance were demanded (a conservative estimate, given reports that government funding leaks can reach as high as 30 to 40 percent), Jokowi and his associates could easily walk away with IDR 10 to 20 trillion this month or sometime before he leaves the presidency.
But by allowing sand export for possibly personal gain, Jokowi forces current and future generations to pay much higher prices for the restoration of environmental destruction caused by his decision. It’s akin to opposing troops in a war burning down cities in their last hurrah.
Masking His Real Intent: Sediment, Not Sand Exports
Jokowi’s claim that Indonesia is exporting sediment rather than sand is merely an attempt to reframe the issue in the face of public criticism.
Technically, sediment can encompass various materials, including sand, silt, and clay. Therefore, labeling it as sediment export does not change the fact that it still contains sand. Regardless of terminology, large-scale extraction of sediment, particularly from marine environments, can have significant ecological consequences, including habitat destruction, erosion, and disruption of local fisheries. This concern remains relevant whether the material is labeled as sand or sediment. The distinction may not hold up under scrutiny, especially if current laws explicitly prohibit the export of sand. If the regulations were designed to protect coastal ecosystems from sand mining, calling it sediment is simply an attempt to bypass those protections.
Even if sediment levels are high, the extraction process can still harm local ecosystems. The impact on marine habitats, fisheries, and the livelihoods of local communities must be thoroughly assessed. Simply removing sediment does not address the root causes of accumulation, such as land erosion and runoff. A more sustainable approach would involve managing these underlying issues rather than relying on exports as a solution. What we need is thorough studies and transparency in the decision-making process regarding the potential long-term effects on marine ecosystems, not more lies.
Environmental and Societal Impacts
The removal of sea sand can exacerbate coastal erosion, leading to the physical deterioration of small islands. Sand acts as a natural barrier, protecting shorelines from the persistent action of waves and currents. Its depletion could result in accelerated erosion of beaches and coastal areas.
Sand extraction also disrupts marine ecosystems, leading to a loss of biodiversity. Seabed dredging directly affects marine habitats, posing threats to various fish species and coral reefs, which are critical to ecological balance and local fisheries.
Meanwhile, local fishermen could face diminished fish stocks due to habitat destruction. The disruption of breeding grounds and feeding areas from dredging activities may result in lower fish populations, thus impacting food security and economic well-being in fishing communities.
People Pay Much Higher for Renovation of Environmental Damages
While the short-term gains benefit only a select few ruling elites, the nation as a whole bears the spectacular damages and costs in the mid and long term. We have yet to determine the exact tax returns for the state from sand exports, but we know with certainty how this will destroy the environment and the livelihoods of people.
The costs to rehabilitate the environment could be three to four times higher than the revenue generated from sand exports. There are clear and multifaceted arguments that the environmental damages from sand exploitation may incur costs far exceeding any short-term financial gains. The degradation of marine and coastal ecosystems due to sand mining can lead to significant restoration costs. Habitats such as coral reefs and mangroves, which provide essential services, may take years or even decades to recover, requiring substantial investment.
Moreover, the impact on local fisheries due to altered habitats can reduce fish populations, further affecting the livelihoods of local communities. The economic losses from diminished fish stocks may far surpass the revenues generated from sand exports. Additionally, degraded coastal environments are less resilient to climate change effects, such as sea-level rise and extreme weather. This could lead to increased costs for disaster management and infrastructure repairs over time.
In terms of social costs, communities reliant on healthy marine ecosystems for their livelihoods may face economic hardship, leading to broader social issues, including poverty and migration. Addressing these social impacts can require significant government funds and resources.
Does Jokowi Violate Laws?
With such massive losses incurred by the nation and its people, can Jokowi be legally held responsible for this decision?
Jokowi’s decision to lift the sea sand export ban could potentially violate several Indonesian laws and international environmental protocols. The primary legal issue revolves around adherence to environmental protection laws and regulations meant to safeguard the country’s ecosystems. Indonesian law mandates Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) on activities that could significantly alter natural landscapes, and lifting a ban of this magnitude might contravene these requirements if not thoroughly vetted and publicly consulted.
Additionally, international agreements such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) could be implicated, especially if the sand dredging and export activities fail to adhere to sustainable practices likely affecting marine biodiversity and potentially leading to international disputes.
There should also be a total audit and investigation into the motives behind lifting the sand export ban. We need complete transparency regarding who benefits and how much to determine whether Jokowi, as president, has a personal motive in this decision. Until then, we demand the government stop the sand export immediately.
