A few nautical miles off the coast of Tanjung Balai Karimun, a small island town in Riau Archipelago Province of Indonesia, a tug boat carrying what appears to be thousands of glittering tiny white gold grains enters one’s peripheral vision. The boat moves ever so slightly as to not cause even the lightest sway that would throw even the smallest fraction of those grains. Such is the precious nature of this treasure from the deep that the boat carries. Who would have guessed, those minuscule sparkling grains of a treasure is actually something more mundane: marine sands, extracted from the seabed surrounding the nearby small islands such as the said Tanjung Balai Karimun and its neighbours. The boat carrying them delivers the treasure as one of Indonesia’s prized export commodities to its highest and most loyal bidder, a tiny but mighty city-state with limited natural resources but unlimited growth, Singapore.

Possessing merely a fraction of Indonesia’s land territory (Singapore is even smaller when compared side by side with some of its neighbouring Indonesian islands) yet an ever-expanding economy, Indonesia-Singapore cross-border marine sands trade dates back to the 1970s. It then accelerated all the way through the 1990s to early 2000s when Singapore underwent gigantic reclamation projects (to name a few: Jurong Island, Marina Bay, Punggol, Coney Island, Pulau Tekong, etc)[1], earning it the title of the world’s largest importer of marine sands. In meeting the ever-increasing demand, Indonesia supplied the marine sands from Riau Archipelago through dredging activities conducted by the elite business actors (national and foreign alike)[2][3] under the license of the Indonesian regional autonomy – hence generating the revenues to both collaborators. However, the locals have been flagging concerns regarding the imbalance revenues when pitted against the environmental and sovereignty issues surrounding the trade, on top of the poor regulation that opens the channel for illegal dredging and alleged corruption.

Legal, Environmental, and Economic Trepidations

Reports began to surface in the early 2000s that several small islands had either eroded beyond recognition or disappeared entirely due to excessive dredging activities. Entering the year of 2007, the Indonesian government has reported that no little than 26 of the country’s islands, predominantly situated in the Riau Archipelago, had vanished[4] as the result of the said large-scale marine sand mining operations and coastal erosion[5]. The extraction of marine sand alters wave patterns and sea currents, leading to accelerated erosion of an island’s shorelines[6]. Over time, this process can submerge an entire island, toppled by unregulated dredging which has accelerated it.

Apart from that, marine sand dredging destroys marine habitats, including coral reefs and seagrass beds, which are crucial for biodiversity and fish populations. Approximately 400,000 hectares of seabed and coral reefs have been adversely affected, disrupting marine biodiversity, local fisheries communities and infrastructures surrounding the area[4]. Riau Archipelago-bound fishing communities have experienced a regression in fish catches due to obliteration of the fish habitat. For instance, fishermen residing near Babi Island reported a decline from 10 kilograms to merely 1 kilogram of daily catch following the nearby dredging activities[5].

On top of it all, poor regulatory framework relating marine sand dredging activities has brought along its own issues. Reports indicate the existence of cartels, allegedly backed by foreign interests, that engage in unauthorised marine sand extraction, often with the underhand approval of certain officials in charge, leading to substantial revenue losses for the Indonesia as a state[6]. From the international law viewpoints, the loss of islands has likewise triggered alarms about maritime baselines under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), as Indonesia feared erosion could compromise its archipelagic baseline system and territorial entitlements.

The Pushed and Pulled Bans

In response to the aforementioned concerns, Indonesia imposed a moratorium on marine sand exports to Singapore in 2003, citing environmental degradation and unsustainable practices. The ban was lifted briefly, but due to continued illegal marine sand mining and diplomatic tensions, Indonesia permanently banned the export of marine sand per January 2007 under the Presidential Decree No. 152/2000 on Coastal and Small Islands Management, later reinforced by Law No. 27/2007 and its amendments[7]. This created further tensions between the two countries. Singapore argued that it was being unfairly affected, while Indonesia asserted its sovereign right to protect its environment and territory. The marine sand ban likewise became a symbolic act of postcolonial assertion and resource nationalism. Despite the ban, illegal marine sand mining persisted, most likely facilitated by weak  law enforcement and alleged corruption.

Eventually in 2023, after a two-decade ban, Indonesian government resumes its marine sand exports through the enactment of Ministerial Regulation No. 33 of 2023 on the utilisation of sedimentation marine sand[8]. The move reopens legal marine sand exports, especially to Singapore, which has long relied on Indonesia’s exported sand for its land reclamation projects. The reopening has expectedly intensified scrutiny and concerns over regulatory effectiveness of Indonesia’s maritime governance, environmental sustainability, and regional sovereignty.

Indonesia’s re-entry into the marine sand trade is governed by a dual regime: domestic environmental and maritime regulations; as well as the international obligations under international environmental law and the law of the sea, particularly the UNCLOS[9]. Article 192 of UNCLOS places a general obligation on states to “protect and preserve the marine environment.” Furthermore, the extraction of marine resources in archipelagic waters, especially near or within the designated Archipelagic Sea Lanes (ASLs), raises legal sensitivities regarding sovereign rights and international navigation freedoms under Part IV of UNCLOS.

While the Ministerial Regulation claims to permit only “sedimented sand” (pasir hasil sedimentasi laut)— which is defined as naturally occurring deposits unrelated to active dredging—the potential for misinterpretation, abuse or yet to be eradicated illegal marine sand trade persist. Historically, the enforcement in Indonesia’s sprawling maritime domain has always been challenging, as evident in the series illegal marine sand trade and maritime violations.

Tipping the Scale

In response to Indonesia’s resumption of its marine sand exports, environmentalists have voiced their strong concerns, citing the erosion, likely degradation of coral reefs, destruction of marine habitats, and disruption of sediment flows. As previously highlighted, studies have long indicated that sand mining—legal or otherwise—contributes significantly to coastal erosion, loss of biodiversity, and marine pollution. In that regard, the Indonesian Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries has pledged enhanced monitoring and cross-sectoral permits, yet critics argue that institutional fragmentation may hamper the enforcement – to date, there are multiple institutions or bodies at play with overlapping jurisdiction regarding Indonesian maritime affairs. As of 2024, no comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for sand export zones have been made publicly available.

For Singapore, sand is more than a construction material—it is a critical asset in national development strategy. As a small island-state with limited natural landmass, Singapore has reclaimed over 22% of its territory since independence[10], relying heavily on imported sand from its neighbours, particularly Indonesia, as it has always been. The resumption of sand exports to Singapore may bolster diplomatic and economic ties, yet it also risks rekindling geopolitical friction over resource use, environmental accountability, and maritime boundaries—particularly in the Riau Archipelago.

Indonesia’s policy shift reflects a broader tension between resource sovereignty, environmental preservation, and economic pragmatism. While the return to marine sand exports may offer fiscal benefits and reassert Indonesia’s regulatory authority over its maritime territory, the risks—legal, ecological, and reputational—are substantial. Sustainable marine resource governance demands more than regulation; it requires transparency, inter-agency coordination, and alignment with international environmental norms. As a state party to UNCLOS and a nation with one of the world’s largest archipelagic zones, Indonesia must ensure that short-term economic interests do not erode long-term maritime resilience.