• Curaçao Chronicle
  • (599-9) 523-4857

Asbestos at Sentro Pro Arte Known Since 2016, But Never Disclosed: Nine-Year Timeline Raises Serious Public Health Questions

Local | By Correspondent December 1, 2025
 

WILLEMSTAD - The presence of asbestos in Sentro Pro Arte has been formally known to the Stichting Schouwburg Curaçao since March 2016, according to an asbestos inventory report conducted that year. The report identified several applications of chrysotile asbestos inside the building — yet this information was never made public, nor did it lead to structural safety measures, public warnings, or restricted access to the site. 

The revelation raises urgent questions about transparency, oversight, and Curaçao’s ability to protect public health as the building burned multiple times and remained openly accessible for years. 

Asbestos Risk Known Before First Major Fire 

The March 2016 asbestos inventory was completed months before the first major fire in September 2016. Immediately after that fire, air-quality tests were carried out to detect possible asbestos release — indicating that the foundation was fully aware of the material’s presence. 

At the time, local reporting heavily speculated about asbestos contamination, but the foundation did not disclose that it already possessed formal documentation confirming the risk. 

Years of Open Access, Repeated Fires, and No Public Warning 

Following fires in 2016, 2018, and 2021, the damaged structure remained unsecured. Social media videos show young people and other trespassers entering the ruins freely. 

To date, it is unclear: 

whether security measures were taken  

whether the site was monitored 

whether remediation or containment plans were ever drafted  

how many people may have been exposed to asbestos released during fires or through physical deterioration 

Authorities have not provided answers. 

Demolition Announced in 2024, But Still No Mention of Earlier Asbestos Report 

In December 2024, the government announced that Sentro Pro Arte would be demolished. Even then, the earlier asbestos findings from 2016 were not mentioned, despite their clear relevance to worker and public safety. 

A new asbestos investigation was only requested in early 2025, possibly triggered by instructions from the Labour Inspectorate during demolition preparations. Public statements at the time suggested that asbestos was discovered only recently, contradicting the existence of the 2016 report. 

It remains unclear whether the earlier documentation played any role in the demolition tender process. 

Legal Framework Lacks Safeguards 

Curaçao currently has only an asbestos import ban (Landsbesluit Invoerverbod Asbest, 2008). There is: 

no legal requirement to conduct an asbestos inventory before renovation or demolition  

no standardized procedures for safe asbestos removal  

inconsistent practices that may expose workers, nearby residents, and visitors to health risks  

This legal gap makes the Sentro Pro Arte case even more concerning.

Broader Questions About Transparency and Safety 

The handling of Sentro Pro Arte reflects deeper systemic issues: 

How often do agencies fail to share crucial safety information?  

Are asbestos inventories conducted and acted upon in other aging buildings?  

What responsibilities do foundations, government bodies, and regulators bear when known risks remain unaddressed? 

With several major renovation and demolition projects expected in the coming years, these questions are growing increasingly urgent. 

An Unresolved Public Health Issue 

Demolition of Sentro Pro Arte began last week, and residents were notified. But what remains missing is a full accounting of the building’s asbestos history and an explanation of why known risks were not disclosed to the public for nearly a decade.

The 2016 documents, combined with recent findings, point to unresolved concerns regarding: 

the foundation’s responsibility  

government oversight  

the safety of workers and residents from 2016 to 2025

Answering these questions is crucial to determining whether authorities acted in compliance with legal obligations, public-health standards, and basic principles of transparency. 

For now, the asbestos story behind Sentro Pro Arte is far from closed — and the public deserves clarity. 

+