KAJIAN PENAMBANGAN PASIR DI WILAYAH KEPULAUAN SPERMONDE,

MAKASSAR

TAHUN AKADEMIK 2022/2023

PL5102 Sumber Daya dan Lingkungan

Oleh:
Zitni Alma (25422021)
Zamaludin Mantali (25422041)
Mohammad Firzat Shindi (25422045)
Abdullah Saeed Ali Baseham (25422701)

(Program Studi Magister Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota)

INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG

Jl. Ganesha 10, Bandung, Indonesia

1
 1. Introduction

1.1 Background
Indonesia merupakan negara kepulauan, sehingga memiliki wilayah laut yang luas. Negara yang
memiliki laut yang luas tentu saja mempunyai wilayah pesisir pantai yang cukup banyak dan beragam
oleh karena itu Indonesia menjadi negara dengan wilayah pesisir pantai yang terkenal keindahannya.
Keindahan alam yang tidak ternilai harganya itu perlu dijaga agar tidak rusak, karena itu merupakan
aset negara yang sangat penting.
Salah satu wilayah pesisir yang sudah cukup terkenal di Makassar yaitu Wilayah Kepulauan
Spermonde. Kepulauan Spermonde terletak di pesisir barat Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan atau sebelah
tenggara Selat Makassar. Kepulauan ini merupakan salah satu kawasan dengan keragaman ekosistem
dan keanekaragaman jenis biota laut yang sangat tinggi di Indonesia.yang saat ini sedang menghadapi
ancaman kerusakan ekosistem terumbu karang yang serius, di mana kondisi ini berpengaruh langsung
terhadap penurunan kualitas sumberdaya perikanan dan pariwisata baharinya.
Ancaman kerusakan ekosistem yang terjadi di Wilayah Kepulauan Spermonde disebabkan
karena adanya penambangan pasir laut yang akan digunakan sebagai Proyek Strategis Nasional di
Pesisir Kota Makassar. Kegiatan penambangan yang dilakukan di area dekat pantai yaitu sekitar 8
mil, yang secara legalitas hal tersebut tidak disalahkan, karena telah diatur dalam ketentuan Pasal 46
ayat (3) Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan Nomor 2 Tahun 2019 tentang Rencana Zonasi
Wilayah Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan Tahun 2019-2039 yang selanjutnya
disebut PERDA No 2/2019.
Walaupun kegiatan tersebut sudah sesuai dengan peruntukan kawasan berdasarkan zonasi namun
kegiatan tersebut menimbulkan dampak kerusakan kepada sumber daya alam, karena tidak
memperhatikan dampak panambangan pasir yang dilakukan terhadap sumber daya alam yang ada di
perairan Spermonde. Padahal, sumber daya alam pun memiliki kedaulatan lingkungan secara jelas
yang diatur dalam Pasal 25A, Pasal 28H ayat (1), dan Pasal 33 ayat (3) dan ayat (4) yang selanjutnya
dapat kita sebut hak lingkungan.
Oleh karena itu perlu adanya kajian lebih lanjut mengenai kegiatan penambangan yang terjadi
Wilayah Kepulauan Spermonde terutama mengenai dampak ekosistem yang terjadi saat ini, pengaruh
terhadap kegiatan masyarakat Spermonde dan memberikan arahan terkait peraturan antara ekosistem
dan kegiatan penambangan.

1.2 Formulation of the Problem

Adapun rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini adalah:
1. Bagaimana kronologis terjadinya penambangan pasir di Wilayah Kepulauan Spermonde?
2. Bagaimana dampak kegiatan penambangan pasir laut di Wilayah Kepulauan Spermonde?
3. Bagaimana arahan rehabilitasi/remediasi pasca penambangan pasir dari sisi perencanaan di di
Wilayah Kepulauan Spermonde?

1.3 Purpose and Benefits

Adapun tujuan kajian ini adalah untuk mengetahui, sejauh mana dampak perubahan ekosistem
yang ada saat ini, memberikan arahan terkait rencana pengembangan wilayah maritime Kepulauan
Spermonde yang berbasis pada dua aspek, yaitu: faktor kondisi lingkungan, dan faktor sosial dan
ekonomi.

1.4 Scope of Problem

Kajian Pengembangan Wilayah Kemaritiman di Sulawesi Selatan mengambil lokasi di Kepulauan
Spermonde, yaitu gugusan pulau-pulau kecil yang membentang di perairan Selat Makassar di mana
termasuk dalam beberapa wilayah administrasi kabupaten dan kota, yaitu Barru, Pangkep, Makassar
dan Takalar. Ruang lingkup kajian ini mencakup dua aspek, yaitu: faktor kondisi lingkungan, dan
faktor sosial dan ekonomi.

2
 2. Literature Review

2.1 Policy Review

2.1.1 Review of Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan Nomor 2 Tahun 2019 Tentang
Rencana Zonasi Wilayah Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan Tahun 2019-
2039
Rencana Zonasi Wilayah Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil yang selanjutnya disingkat dengan RZWP-3-
K adalah rencana yang menentukan arah penggunaan sumber daya tiap-tiap satuan perencanaan
disertai dengan penetapan struktur dan pola ruang pada kawasan perencanaan yang memuat kegiatan
yang boleh dilakukan dan tidak boleh dilakukan serta kegiatan yang hanya dapat dilakukan
setelah memperoleh izin di wilayah pesisir dan pulau-pulau kecil.(Arrias et al., 2019) berdasarkan
kebijakan Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan Nomor 2 Tahun 2019 Tentang Rencana
Zonasi Wilayah Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan Tahun 2019-2039 tertuang
dalam pasal 7 bagian kedua menyebutkan bahwa, Kebijakan pengelolaan Wilayah Pesisir dan Pulau-
Pulau Kecil meliputi:

a. kebijakan perlindungan lingkungan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 6 huruf a, meliputi:

1. mewujudkan pengendalian laju kerusakan ekosistem di bawah tingkat kemampuan

pemulihannya

2. mewujudkan peningkatan kelestarian dan penanganan dampak lingkungan

3. mewujudkan peningkatan konservasi dan rehabilitasi ekosistem pesisir dan Pulau-

pulau Kecil dan lahan kritis lainnya

4. memelihara dan mengembangkan konservasi WP-3-K; dan

5. mengurangi tingkat pencemaran dan kerusakan lingkungan di kawasan pesisir dan

Pulau-pulau Kecil.

b.kebijakan penataan kelembagaan dan penegakan hukum sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 6 huruf
d, meliputi:

1. mewujudkan pengendalian kegiatan reklamasi pantai untuk mencegah kerusakan

lingkungan di kawasan pesisir

2. mewujudkan peningkatan penataan dan penegakan hukum

3. mewujudkan penataan ruang WP-3-K yang terintegrasi antar wilayah, sektor maupun
pemangku kepentingan

4. mewujudkan pengembangan sistem informasi terpadu

Pada paragraf 7 zona perikanan tangkap pasal 20 ayat 2 di jabarkan bahwa wilayah Kepulauan
Spermonde adalah gugusan pulau-pulau kecil yang tersebar di Kabupaten Barru, Kabupaten
Pangkajene Kepulauan, Kota Makassar dan Kabupaten Takalar.

Adapun Sanksi yang diberikan terhadap penyalagunaan pengelolaan Wilayah Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau
Kecil telah diatur juga dalam Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan Nomor 2 Tahun 2019
Tentang Rencana Zonasi Wilayah Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan Tahun
2019-2039 tertuang dalam pasal 106 Bab XIV tentang Sanksi Administratif yaitu :

3
a. Pemanfaatan ruang dari sebagian perairan pesisir dan perairan Pulaupulau Kecil yang tidak sesuai
dengan Izin Lokasi yang diberikan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 67 ayat (1) dan ayat (2)
dikenakan sanksi administratif.

b. Sanksi administratif sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) berupa peringatan, pembekuan
sementara, dan/atau pencabutan Izin Lokasi.

c. Pemanfaatan sumber daya perairan pesisir dan perairan Pulau-pulau Kecil yang tidak sesuai dengan
Izin Pengelolaan yang diberikan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 69 ayat (1) dikenakan sanksi
administratif.

d. Sanksi administratif sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (3) dapat berupa:

1. peringatan tertulis

2. penghentian sementara kegiatan

3. penutupan lokasi

4. pencabutan izin

5. pembatalan izin; dan/atau

6. denda administratif

2.1.2 Tinjauan Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan Nomor 3 Tahun 2022 tentang
Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan tahun 2022-2041
Berdasarkan Perda Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan Nomor 3 Tahun 2022 tentang Rencana Tata
Ruang Wilayah Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan tahun 2022-2041 pasal 4 bagian kesatu tentang Tujuan
Penataan Ruang Wilayah Provinsi yaitu untuk mewujudkan Ruang yang produktif, kompetitif,
inklusif, inovatif, dan berkelanjutan melalui pendekatan kemandirian lokal menuju provinsi yang
terkemuka di Indonesia.(Wicaksana, 2016) adapun Fungsi Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Provinsi
adalah :

1. sebagai arahan bagi pembangunan Daerah Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan

2. sebagai landasan kebijakan tentang arahan Pemanfaatan Ruang di Wilayah Provinsi

Sulawesi Selatan sesuai dengan kondisi Wilayah dan berasaskan pembangunan yang
berkelanjutan dalam 20 (dua puluh tahun) mendatang

3. sebagai bahan rujukan bagi penyusunan rencana program pembangunan Daerah dalam 1
(satu) tahun dan 5 (lima) tahun

4. sebagai sarana untuk mewujudkan keterkaitan dan kesinambungan perkembangan antara

wilayah di dalam Wilayah Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan

5. sebagai rujukan/referensi Kabupaten/Kota dalam penyusunan RTR Wilayah

Kabupaten/Kota.

Dalam peninjauan Perda Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan Nomor 3 Tahun 2022 tentang Rencana Tata
Ruang Wilayah Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan tahun 2022-2041 bagian satu pasal 43 huruf W disebutkan
bahwa Kawasan konservasi pesisir dan pulau-pulau kecil yang meliputi Pulau Lanyukang di sebagian
perairan sekitar Pulau Lanjukang di Kota Makassar, Pulau Sembilan di sebagian perairan sekitar
Kepulauan Sembilan di Kabupaten Sinjai, Pulau Tanakeke di sebagian perairan sekitar Pulau
Tanakeke di Kabupaten Takalar, Pulau Panikiang di sebagian perairan sekitar Pulau Panikiang di

4
Kabupaten Barru, Liukang Tangaya di sebagian perairan sekitar Kecamatan Liukang Tangaya di
Kabupaten Pangkajene Kepulauan dan Pulau Kakabia di Kabupaten Kepulauan Selayar. Sedangkan
pada pasal 53 disebutkan bahwa Kawasan pertambangan dan energi sebagaimana dimaksud dalam
Pasal 47 huruf f terdapat di Kabupaten Barru, Kabupaten Bone, Kabupaten Bulukumba, Kabupaten
Gowa, Kabupaten Jeneponto, Kabupaten Kepulauan Selayar, Kota Pare Pare, Kabupaten Luwu,
Kabupaten Luwu Timur, Kabupaten Luwu Utara, Kabupaten Maros, Kabupaten Pangkajene
Kepulauan, Kabupaten Pinrang, Kabupaten Sidenreng Rappang, Kabupaten Sinjai, Kabupaten
Soppeng, Kabupaten Tana Toraja, Kabupaten Toraja Utara, Kabupaten Wajo, Kabupaten Enrekang,
Kabupaten Takalar, Blok Spermonde, Blok Flores, dan Blok Teluk Bone.

2.1.3 Tinjauan Peraturan Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Nomor 24 Tahun 2016
tentang Tata Cara Rehabilitasi Wilayah Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil
Rehabilitasi Wilayah Pesisir dan Pulau-pulau Kecil adalah proses pemulihan dan perbaikan kondisi
ekosistem atau populasi yang telah rusak walaupun hasilnya dapat berbeda dari kondisi semula. Tata
cara rehabilitasi bertujuan untuk memberikan panduan atau pedoman dalam pelaksanaan Rehabilitasi
sehingga dapat memulihkan dan/atau memperbaiki Ekosistem atau populasi Ikan yang rusak
walaupun hasilnya berbeda dari kondisi semula. Ruang lingkup dalam rehabilitasi dilakukan terhadap:
a. terumbu karang
b. mangrove
c. lamun
d. estuari
e. laguna
f. teluk
g. delta
h. gumuk pasir
i. pantai dan/atau
j. populasi ikan
Rehabilitasi dilakukan oleh Pemerintah Pusat, pemerintah daerah, dan orang yang memanfaatkan
secara langsung atau tidak langsung wilayah pesisir dan pulau-pulau kecil. Berdasarkan hal tersebut
yang memanfaatkan secara langsung merupakan perusahaan yang melakukan kegiatan penambangan
pasir di Kepulauan Spermonde. Kegiatan rehabilitasi yang dimaksud adalah wajib dilakukan apabila
pemanfaatan wilayah pesisir dan pulau-pulau kecil mengakibatkan kerusakan Ekosistem atau Populasi
Ikan yang melampaui kriteria kerusakan Ekosistem atau Populasi Ikan. Pelaksanaan rehabilitasi dapat
dilakukan melalui pengayaan sumber daya hayati, perbaikan habitat, perlindungan spesies biota laut
agar tumbuh dan berkembang secara alami dan ramah lingkungan. Lebih jelasnya dapat dilihat pada
penjelasan berikut:
1. pengayaan sumber daya hayati dapat dilakukan dengan
a. penanaman;
b. transplantasi;
c. penebaran benih atau restocking; dan/atau
d. pembuatan habitat buatan
2. perbaikan habitat dapat dilakukan dengan
a. pencegahan dan/atau penghentian kegiatan yang dapat merusak habitat;
b. penggunaan/penerapan konstruksi bangunan yangsesuai prinsip ekologi;
c. penggunaan/penerapan teknis perbaikan habitat;
d. transplantasi; dan/atau
e. pembuatan habitat buatan.
3. perlindungan spesies biota dapat dilakukan dengan
a. penyediaan dan/atau perlindungan daerah pemijahan (spawning ground), daerah
pembesaran (nursery ground), serta daerah pencarian makan (feeding ground);
b. penyuluhan dan penyadaran;
c. pengawasan; dan/atau
d. penegakan hukum terhadap pelaku kerusakan.

5
Pemeliharaan Rehabilitasi dengan menjaga keserasian siklus alamiah komponen abiotik Estuari,
Laguna, Teluk, Delta, dan Pantai, dilakukan dengan cara pengerukan atau pengurugan untuk
mempertahankan bentuk aslinya dan mengurangi sedimentasi dan menjaga kualitas air dan tanah.
Pemeliharaan Rehabilitasi dengan mempertahankan dan menjaga kondisi estuari, laguna, teluk, delta,
dan pantai dari pengaruh alam atau kegiatan manusia, dilakukan dengan cara pencegahan dan
pengendalian pencemaran, pengendalian penambangan pasir, dan penetapan Kawasan Konservasi.
Dalam melakukan rehabilitiasi masyarakat atau setiap orang dapat berperan serta dalam pelaksanaan
dan pemeliharaan Rehabilitasi secara sukarela.

2.2 Operational Definition

2.2.1 Mining and Sea Products Mining

Mining is the potential hidden deep within the ground. The Big Indonesian Dictionary defines a
mineral as a homogenous solid that is not organic, is generated naturally, has a certain composition,
and is very numerous, much like gold, copper, diamonds, pelicans, and other things mined (Nur Ainun
Wulandari 2022). Sand mining is an effort to extract sand from the ocean floor and shift it to another
place. The exploitation of sand mining may result in wastes and mud at the bottom of the swirl
leading to increase turbidity and the quantity of TSS (Total Suspended Solids) in the mining area.
Abundance and biodiversity can only be certified after 1 to 3 years, although the recovery of biota
requires a long period due to the benthic organisms at the base being hindered by the increase in
turbidity (Doloksaribu, Barus, and Sebayang 2020).

Sea Products Mining

For a region to improve its industrial sector and economy, mining is a strategic activity. Sea sand
mining is one of the mining activities, particularly for coastal regions. It can be done in the vicinity of
the coast or even in the middle of the ocean, using both conventional and more sophisticated
equipment (Nur Ainun Wulandari 2022). The main economic value and mining potential factors are
taken into account when determining mining zones. However, other natural factors that are impacted
by sea sand mining activities must also be taken into account. These include effects on physical
conditions, ecological impact, impact on conservation areas, impact on existing space use, and
socioeconomic impact (Nur Ainun Wulandari 2022). If sea sand mining is done legally, it has benefits
for the community and the state's treasury, including.

● Increased state revenue from sea sand exports in terms of foreign currency.
● Developing local revenue streams for each district.
● Wharf or port area expansion.

In general, marine sand serves as a buffer for shorelines, a marine environment, and a crucial
component in building. Because there is a finite supply, marine sand management needs to be
sustainable (Cho 2006).and as a remedial measure, the detrimental effects of the mining activity
should be watched to insure the losses are as low as possible.

2.2.2 Towards Marine Ecosystem Restoration

Over the last century, the effects of anthropogenic activity on the maritime environment have
increased. The marine ecosystem is under a lot of stress as a result of rising industrialization, rising
resource use, and a growth in coastal people. Numerous individual pressures are placed on the marine
environment by land-based activities such as farming or the discharge of industrial effluents from
coastal and inland areas, as well as marine activities directly related to marine uses like shipping,
fishing, aquaculture, coastal infrastructure, and marine sand mining (Smith CJ 2016).

As anthropogenic activities have grown, it has gradually become understood that the marine
ecosystem is a finite resource that can be damaged and degraded. This has resulted in numerous

6
degrees of control and regulation on activities that have generated influencing pressures, from the
local to the national and international level. With the growth of the activities, the level of control has
increased, and most recently, it has ensured sustainable development in terms of halting
environmental deterioration and strengthening environmental protection through conservation
programs. Conservation objectives can be met by preserving intact habitat, restoring damaged
habitats, or doing both at once (Possingham HP 2015). A well-managed restoration program should
not only stop the degradation of ecosystem, but also help ecosystems regain their pre-disturbance
functionality and habitat functions. It has been widely accepted that a variety of different restoration
actions are necessary to stop further decline and reverse the current trends of degradation and species
loss. The most significant causes of species decline and extinction in the marine ecosystem have been
attributed to habitat loss and degradation.

Marine ecosystem ecological restoration has trailed behind terrestrial ecosystem restoration, in part
because underwater ecosystems are generally "out of view," because the demands and level of
degradation are not well understood, and in part because it is challenging to work in a marine setting.
Restoration is well-developed along the coast, for instance for saltmarshes and mangroves (Morrison
G 2011), less so for coastal ecosystems like seagrasses or corals (Rinkevich B 2008), and much less
so for deeper waters (Mengerink KJ 2014). It is now necessary to adapt and apply the ideas, values,
and qualities chosen for monitoring and evaluation that were mostly developed for terrestrial
ecosystems (van Dover CL 2014).

2.2.3 Ecological Restoration

Ecological restoration is "the process of aiding the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded,
damaged, or destroyed" (Clewell AF 2013). The way this definition is structured calls attention to a
number of ideas: recovery is applied to a variety of damaged to destroyed ecosystems, and then the
idea of process is presented, demonstrating that restoration is not a static process and that time is
crucial. At the socio-ecological level, time can play a crucial role in the design and planning of
restoration projects (Kirsch KD 2005; Bayraktarov E 2016), gaining support from stakeholders to
launch a project (Gleason M 2010), and tracking short-term success and progress towards objectives
(Bayraktarov E 2016). At the ecosystem level, time is also crucial for biological life cycles, the
restoration or introduction of abiotic and biotic activities, and the replacement or introduction of
structures, such as the replanting of important structural species or the provision of substitute
structures (Gianni F 2013). The 'process' suggests, most importantly, that several restoration
procedures are necessary at various levels of intervention According to a "restorative continuum"
(McDonald T 2016), the restoration process can be explained as a progression from eradicating the
root causes of decline to complete ecosystem restoration. Figure 6 depicts the restoration process and
highlights some of the subsets or interventions that may be involved.

7
Figure 6Concepts/terminology and relationships used in the restoration process source
(Papadopoulou N et al. 2017)

Although there are several acts or combinations of actions that may be viewed as intermediate, the
distinction between unaided or spontaneous regeneration and so-called active restoration is sometimes
drawn as a major dichotomy. Unaided regeneration mostly entails changing management strategies to
more effectively control and/or halt human activities that result in deteriorating pressures. This could
include local laws, modifications to one landowner's practices, EU directives, and international
conventions, among other things. Both conservation and restoration efforts depend on management or
the absence of threats such as invasive species (McDonald T 2016). When selecting a restoration site,
neglecting threats and man-made stressors like eutrophication, altered hydrology, and physical
damage that impede natural regeneration frequently results in failures (Bayraktarov E 2016).

In order to scale up restoration to larger spatial scales, a recent strategy promoting the ecosystem
services framework and the restoration of natural capital (Blignaut J 2014; Aronson J 2017) calls for a
family of restorative activities which may involve some of the actions shown in Figure 6 that can be
completed simultaneously or in a sequential manner (Aronson J 2017). Researchers' and practitioners'
approaches to these tasks will undoubtedly vary in terms of terminology and inter-use; in addition,
(Papadopoulou N et al. 2017) introduced the following restoration terminologies as examples:

Ecosystem Recovery, the ability of a habitat, community, individual, or single colony of species to
recover from disturbing caused by an external force, which is an essential concept in many definitions
(Elliott M et al. 2007). Ecosystem rehabilitation implicitly refers to restoring a damaged ecosystem to
health.

Ecosystem protection falls between unaided recovery, where activities are unrestricted, and
supported recovery, where an intervention may lessen the reasons of decline, such as removing sea
urchins that are responsible for barrens.

Ecosystem remediation, which (Bradshaw AD 2002) defined as the action "to rectify or make good,"
emphasizes the process rather than the outcome, i.e., not necessarily complete restoration, and can
include a variety of approaches to restore or enhance a site's ecological value, from non-intervention
to habitat enhancement (Elliott M et al. 2007). Enhancement refers to management practices that
enhance a habitat or increase a site's products and services (for example, more wading birds spending
the winter on an estuary), while remediation is frequently used to describe the environmental clean-up
of polluted places (Elliott M et al. 2007).

8
Ecological restoration It is the process of restoring a habitat or ecosystem after it has been degraded
by human activities, including the re-establishment of the pre-existing biotic integrity in terms of
species composition and community structure. This process is known as assisting the recovery of an
ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed (SER 2004; Clewell AF and Aronson J
2014).

Ecological engineering is described by (Mitsch WJ 2012) as "the creation of sustainable ecosystems

that integrate human society with the environment for the benefit of both." To accomplish particular
human goals and address technical issues, it involves manipulating natural resources, living things,
and the physico-chemical environment (SER 2004). This includes restoring ecosystems that have been
damaged by humans and creating new, sustainable ecosystems that have both ecological and human
values.

Creation is an anthropogenic intervention that creates a habitat that was not previously there; for
instance, artificial reefs put on a sandy sea floor should be considered producing new habitat rather
than replacing lost habitat in order to boost the biodiversity of an area (Elliott M et al. 2007). In
situations where habitat loss cannot be prevented, habitat creation may result from compensatory
activities resulting from legal duties.

Ecosystem Rehabilitation comprises of direct or indirect actions with the aim of reinstating a level
of ecosystem functionality where ecological restoration is not sought, but rather the renewed and on-
going provision of ecosystem services (MacDonald et al., 2016). Rehabilitation, according to Elliott et
al. (2007), is the activity of partially or fully replacing structural or functional characteristics of an
ecosystem that have been lost.

To assist rehabilitation, human intervention is necessary. The abandonment of practices that have harmed
ecosystems is the lone exception to this rule. Beyond that, the intervention may involve, as previously
mentioned, management operations or some direct intervention, such as removing issues, rebuilding structures,
or providing physical habitats by establishing the proper abiotic and biotic conditions, sowing, and transplanting
(Figure 6). Among the most often restored targets are coral reefs, seagrass beds, mangrove forests, salt marshes,
and oyster reefs, according to (Bayraktarov E 2016) survey of restoration techniques. The most effective
restoration efforts used ex-situ and in-situ nursery culture conditions followed by out-planting and transplanting.
Examples of base stock used in these projects included corals for fragmenting and on growing, macrophytes for
seeds, seedlings, sprigs, shoots, or rhizomes. Mixed methods that combine facilitation, biological engineering,
and the introduction of structures have been tested with high success rates and/or promising results
(Papadopoulou N et al. 2017). Successful mangrove restoration projects, for instance, included facilitation
through the removal of invasive plants, hydrological restoration, site contouring, and excavations, as well as the
planting of smooth cord grass to trap mangrove seeds; in contrast, saltmarsh projects place an emphasis on the
connection between ecological factors and engineered structures (Bayraktarov E 2016; Elliott M et al. 2007).

Restoration Benefits

An ecosystem's benefits or changes in benefits will have some societal value, and habitat restoration
can add economic value if it results in the production of new ecosystem services, increases the value
of already-existing goods and services, or raises the value of other economic activities dependent on
the health of the ecosystem (Pendleton Linwood 2010). The technique of determining the values of
these advantages is known as ecosystem service valuation, which also provides the chance to take into
account ecosystem costs and benefits that can be disregarded in management and planning within a
market framework alone (Börger T et al. 2014). The difficulty in assessing benefits lies in the inability
to recognize the full variety of ecosystem services and the benefits provided to societies, as well as in
choosing acceptable metrics indicating ecosystem services that can be quantified in monetary terms
(Adame MF et al. 2014; Hattam C et al. 2015).

A restoration project's results may have a variety of different effects (Figure 7), which (Pendleton
Linwood 2010) categorizes as direct market effects (such as visitors' willingness to pay to visit a
restored area), indirect market effects (such as an increase in fish nursery grounds that results in an

9
increase in commercial catches), and non-market effects (such as an increase in cultural benefits like
recreational values or inspirational activities).

Figure 7Cost-Benefit Factors in Restoration Source: (Papadopoulou N et al. 2017)

3. Method
3.1 Research Method

4. Data and Analysis

4.1 Chronology of Sea Sand Mining Activities in the Spermonde Islands
The sea sand mining project in the fishing area is a supporting activity for developing
the National Strategic Project (PSN), namely Makassar New Port. The source of material
for the reclamation of Makassar New Port (MNP) is in the spermonde block, which has
been regulated in the Regional Zoning Plan for Coastal Areas and Small Islands
(RZWP3K) of South Sulawesi (2019-2039). Makassar New Port is one of the National
Strategic Projects (PSN) that will be built on the coast of Makassar City, precisely in
Tallo and Buloa Villages. The MNP development plan has been regulated in the
Regulation of the Minister of Transportation number 92 of 2013 concerning the Makassar
Port Master Plan. This port is planned to have an area of 1,428 ha and will become the
largest port in eastern Indonesia. The construction process is divided into several stages,
where the first phase began in 2020 and was carried out by PT. Royal Beskalis is targeted
to be completed in 2022. It is expected that by 2025 MNP will be a port that has a pier of
9,923 meters.
PT Royal Boskalis, with its dredge Queen of the Netherlands, started mining on
February 13, 2020. This mining was carried out in the sea sand mining zone of the
Spermonde Block. After research and observations in the field by the WALHI team, it
was assessed that the location of sea sand mining was right in the fishing area of
Kodingareng Island, namely Copong Lompo, Copong Ca'di, Bonema'lonjo, and
Pungangrong. The existence of the Queen of the Netherlands ship owned by Boskalis is
considered to be carrying out sea sand mining activities in the fishing area of the
Kodingareng Island Fishermen (around Copong Lompo) in Spermonde waters.

10
 Figure Peta Wilayah Tangkap

Source : Walhi Sulsel, 2019

As in the RZWP3K document mentioned in article 19 related to mining zones, the

direction for the development of KPU-TB-P or sea sand mining subzones, one of which is
in the Spermonde Block called KPU-TB-P-01. However, in article 20 related to capturing
fisheries zones, the KPU-PT development directive is carried out in sea waters up to
twelve miles from the coastline. It consists of a demersial subzone or KPU-PT-D-01 to
KPU-PT-D-05, which includes the waters of the Spermonde Islands and a pelagic and
demersial subzone with KPU-PT-PD-01 to KPU-PT-PD-04 which includes the waters of
the Spermonde Islands. Through this, it can be seen that there is a wedge between the
mining zone and the capture fishery zone in the Spermonde Block, namely the sea sand
mining zone is within the demersal zone. More details can be seen in the following space
allocation map.

11
 Figure Peta Alokasi Ruang RZWP3K Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan

4.2 Current Conditions After Sea Sand Mining Activities

4.3 Impact of Sea Sand Mining Activities
4.3.1 Environmental Conditions
4.3.2 Socio-economic Conditions
4.4 Post-Sand Mining Rehabilitation/Remediation Directive From the Planning Side

5 Conclusion

Bibliography

Abdullah References

Adame MF, Hermoso V, Perhans K, Lovelock CE, and Herrera-Silveira JA. 2014. “Selecting
Cost-Effective Areas for Restoration of Ecosystem Services.” Conservation Biology, no. 29:
493–502.

Aronson J, Blignaut J,Aronson TB. 2017. “Conceptual Frameworks and References for
Landscape-Scale Restoration: Reflecting Back and Looking Forward.” Annals of the Missouri
Botanical Garden, no. 102: 188–200.

12
Bayraktarov E, Saunders MI, Abdullah S, Mills M, Beher J, Possingham HP, Mumby PJ,
Lovelock CE. 2016. “The Cost and Feasibility of Marine Coastal Restoration.” Ecological
Applications 26: 1055–1074.

Blignaut J, Aronson J, de Groot R. 2014. “Restoration of Natural Capital: A Key Strategy on the
Path to Sustainability.” Ecological Engineering, no. 65: 54–61.

Börger T, Beaumont NJ, Pendleton L, Boyle KJ, Cooper P, Fletcher S, Haab T, et al. 2014.
“Incorporating Ecosystem Services in Marine Planning: The Role of Valuation.” Marine Policy,
no. 46: 161–170.

Bradshaw AD. 2002. Handbook of Ecological Restoration. Principles of Restoration,.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cho, Dong Oh. 2006. “Challenges to Sustainable Development of Marine Sand in Korea.”
Ocean and Coastal Management 49 (1–2): 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.10.001.

Clewell AF, Aronson J. 2013. Ecological Restoration: Principles, Values, and Structures of an
Emerging Profession . Edited by =. (2nd Editi. Washington DC: Island Press.

Clewell AF, and Aronson J. 2014. Ecological Restoration: Principles, Values, and Structures of
an Emerging Profession. (2nd Editi. Washington DC: Island Press.

Doloksaribu, D. C.N., T. A. Barus, and K. Sebayang. 2020. “The Impact of Marine Sand Mining
on Sea Water Quality in Pantai Labu, Deli Serdang Regency, Indonesia.” In IOP Conference
Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Vol. 454. Institute of Physics Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/454/1/012086.

Dover CL, Aronson J, Pendleton L, Smith S, Arnaud-Haond S, Moreno-Mateos D, Barbier E,

Billett D, Bowers, K, Danovaro R,Edwards A, Kellert S, Morato T, Pollard E, Rogers A, Warner
R van. 2014. “Ecological Restoration in the Deep Sea: Desiderata.” Marine Policy 44: 98–106.

Elliott M, Burdon D, Hemingway KL, and Apitz SE. 2007. “Estuarine, Coastal and Marine
Ecosystem Restoration: Confusing Management and Science – A Revision of Concepts.”
Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, no. 74: 349–366.

Ernas, Zuleha, M. Hasroel Thayib, and Widodo S Pranowo. 2018. “PENGARUH

PENAMBANGAN PASIR LAUT TERHADAP KEKERUHAN PERAIRAN TELUK
BANTEN SERANG.” Jurnal Segara 14 (1). https://doi.org/10.15578/segara.v14i1.7149.

Gianni F, Bartolini F, Airoldi L, Ballesteros E, Francour P, Guidetti P, Meinesz A, Thibaut T.,

Mangialajo. 2013. “Conservation and Restoration of Marine Forests in the Mediterranean Sea
and the Potential Role of Marine Protected Areas.” Advances in Oceanography and Limnology
4: 83–101.

Gleason M, McCreary S, Miller-Henson M, Ugoretz J, Fox E,, Merrifield M, McClintock W,

Serpa P, Hoffman K. 2010. “Science-Based and Stakeholder-Driven Marine Protected Area
Network Planning: A Successful Case Study from North Central California.” Ocean & Coastal
Management 53: 52–68.

Hattam C, Atkins JP, Beaumont N, Börger T, Anne Böhnke-Henrichs A, Burdon D, de Groot R,

et al. 2015. “Marine Ecosystem Services: Linking Indicators to Their Classification.” Ecological
Indicators, no. 49: 61–75.

13
Hoeksema, B.W.,. 1990. “Systematic and Ecology of Mushroom Corals (Scleractinia
Fungiidae).” PhD Thesis Leiden Netherland.

Jompa, Jamaluddin, Willem Moka, and Dewi Yanuarita. 2005. “Kondisi Ekosistem Perairan
Kepulauan Spermonde: Keterkaitannya Dengan Pemanfaatan Sumberdaya Laut Di Kepulauan
Spermonde Condition of Spermonde Ecosystem: Its Relationship with the Utilization of
Maritime Resources of the Spermonde Archipelago.”

KAMAL I SARI. 2014. “Pengembangan Wisata Bahari Pulau Panambungan Kabupaten

Pangkep Dengan Pendekatan Aplikasi Desain Hemat Energi.” Program Sarjana Arsitektur,
Jurusan Teknik Arsitektur, Fakultas Sains Dan Teknologi. Universitas Islam Negeri Alauddin.
Makassar.

Kasnir, Muhammad. 2011. “Analisis Aspek Ekologi Penatakelolaan Minawisata Minawisata

Bahari Di Pepulauan Spermonde Kabupaten Pangkep, Sulawesi Selatan.” Jurnal Ilmu Kelautan
Undip. Jurnal Ilmu Kelautan Undip 16 (2): 61–69. www.ijms.undip.ac.id.

Kirsch KD, Barry KA, Fonseca MS, Whitfield PE, Meehan SR, Kenworthy WJ, Julius BE.
2005. “The Mini-312 Program – An Expedited Damage Assessment and Restoration Process for
Seagrasses in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.” Journal of Coastal Research 40:
109–119.

McDonald T, Gann GD, Jonson J, Dixon KW. 2016. International Standards for the Practice of
Ecological Restoration – Including Principles and Key Concepts. McDonald T, Gann GD,
Jonson J, Dixon KW. Washington DC: Society for Ecological Restoration.

Mengerink KJ, Van Dover CL, Ardron J, Baker M, Escobar-Briones E, Gjerde K, Koslow AJ,
Ramirez-Llodra E, Lara-Lopez A, Squires D, Sutton T, Sweetman AK, Levin la. 2014. “A Call
for Deep-Ocean Stewardship.” Science 344: 696–698.

Mitsch WJ. 2012. “What Is Ecological Engineering?” Ecological Engineering, no. 45: 5–12.

Morrison G, Robison D, Yates KK. 2011. “Habitat Protection and Restoration. In: Yates KK,
Greening H, Morrison G (Eds) Integrating Science and Resource Management in Tampa Bay,
Florida. U.S.” Geological Survey Circular 1348: 239–280.

Nur Ainun Wulandari. 2022. “PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM NELAYAN KECIL

PENAMBANGAN PASIR LAUT DI SPERMONDE SULAWESI SELATAN.”

Papadopoulou N, Sevastou K, Smith CJ, Gerovasileiou V, Dailianis T, Fraschetti S, Guarnieri G,

et al. 2017. “Marine Ecosystem Restoration in Changing European Seas.”

Pendleton Linwood. 2010. “Measuring and Monitoring the Economic Effects of Habitat
Restoration: A Summary of a NOAA Blue Ribbon Panel.”

Possingham HP, Bode M, Klein CJ. 2015. “Optimal Conservation Outcomes Require Both
Restoration and Protection.” PLoS Biology 13 (1).

Proyek, Oligarki, Strategis Nasional, Dan Kerusakan, Laut Spermonde, Hasil Riset, / Investigasi,
Dampak Aktivitas, et al. 2020. “PANRAKI PA’BOYA-BOYANGANG.”

Rinkevich B. 2008. “Management of Coral Reefs: We Have Gone Wrong When Neglecting
Active Reef Restoration.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 56: 1821–24.

14
SER. 2004. “Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working
Group.” www.ser.org.

Smith CJ, Papadopoulou K-N, Barnard S,, Mazik K, Elliott M, Patrício J, Solaun O, Little S,
Bhatia N, Borja A. 2016. “Managing the Marine Environment, Conceptual Models and
Assessment Considerations for the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive.” Frontiers
in Marine Science 3: 144.

Tamti, Hartati, and Ratnawati dan Asni Anwar. 2014. “KONDISI SUMBERDAYA ALAM
DAN MASYARAKAT PULAU DI KOTA MAKASSAR: STUDI KASUS PULAU
KODINGARENG DAN PULAU BARRANGCADDI.” Vol. 3.

? References

Arrias, J. C., Alvarado, D., & Calderón, M. (2019). PERATURAN DAERAH PROVINSI
SULAWESI SELATAN NOMOR 2 TAHUN 2019 TENTANG RENCANA ZONASI
WILAYAH PESISIR DAN PULAU-PULAU KECIL PROVINSI SULAWESI SELATAN
TAHUN 2019-2039. 5–10.

Wicaksana, A. (2016). PERATURAN DAERAH PROVINSI SULAWESI SELATAN

NOMOR 3 TAHUN 2022 TENTANG RENCANA TATA RUANG WILAYAH
PROVINSI SULAWESI SELATAN TAHUN 2022-2041. Https://Medium.Com/, 1.
https://medium.com/@arifwicaksanaa/pengertian-use-case-a7e576e1b6bf

15