Indonesia Update 2025: Victories, Research, Subterfuge
The committed efforts of grassroots campaigners in Indonesia have transformed the national asbestos dialogue from one accepting asbestos industry rhetoric about the “safe use” of asbestos – a Group 1 carcinogen – to one calling for interim health protections prior to an eventual ban on all use. The campaign to raise awareness of the asbestos health hazard has been supported by victims’ and consumer groups, trade unionists, medical experts, health and safety campaigners, local politicians and concerned citizens.1 A research study published earlier this year – Mapping Asbestos Vulnerability in Indonesia Using Earthquake Vulnerability – underscored specific regional areas and groups at risk from asbestos exposures and considered the repercussions of natural disasters in this earthquake-prone country. 2
A few weeks ago, the DKI Jakarta High Court issued a ruling in favor of activists who had successfully petitioned the Supreme Court for the introduction of mandatory warning labels on asbestos-cement roofing products.3 Rejecting arguments in an appeal by the Indonesian asbestos trade association, the Fibre Cement Manufacturers’ Association (FICMA), the Court:
- acquitted defendants Dhiccey Sandewa, Ajat Sudrajat, Leo Yogapranata, the Independent Consumer Protection Agency (LPKSM) Yasa Nata Budi, Indonesian Ban Asbestos Network (INA-BAN) and the Yasa Nata Budi Foundation of FICMA’s claim for massive material damages;
- upheld the right of campaigners to continue working to raise asbestos awareness.4
Below are photos of a few of the impactful asbestos outreach initiatives and educational events held by campaigners in Indonesia.
 Senior High School students with banner: Save our Generation from the Dangers of Asbestos. 2011. Photograph courtesy of INA-BAN. |
 Community Asbestos Outreach in Bandung, Indonesia. 2012. Photograph courtesy of INA-BAN. |
 Medical Seminar: Update Diagnosis of Asbestos Related Disease at Binawan University, Jakarta, Indonesia. 2018. Photograph courtesy of INA-BAN. |
 Indonesian National Seminar - Asbestos: Poison Scattered in the Disaster Nation. 2019. Photograph courtesy of INA-BAN. |
Processing and digesting the details and ramifications of the Court’s November 17th decision took some time. It was clear to all of us supporting the accused, that the Court had seen this case for what it was – an attempt by a well-resourced industry lobby to silence opponents through the use of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).
Once the dust had settled, the overwhelming feeling of the defendants, their families and supporters at home and abroad was one of relief. Unfortunately, the verdict had a sting in the tail as it had also opined that chrysotile asbestos, the only type of asbestos uses in Indonesia, is a material that is “safe, necessary and protected by Law No. 10 of 2013 concerning the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Approved Procedures for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade.” In a joint communiqué, the defendants commented on the Court’s misunderstanding:
“This view is not only scientifically flawed but also exceeds the capabilities of judges because it touches on the realm of toxicology, which has never been legally proven in court. We view this narrative as an attempt to legitimize toxic materials through a loophole in jurisprudence. We refuse to be passive or compromise with this ‘false truth.’ Therefore, on November 25, 2025, we officially filed an appeal. We took this step to straighten out the legal logic and ensure that there is no room for the industry to continue endangering the public.”
Once the details of the Court’s ruling were known, it was clear that its comments regarding the Rotterdam Convention had to be addressed. The Convention is a United Nations treaty designed to safeguard human health and protect the environment; it is not a global safety standard. The decision to categorize a chemical or pesticide as hazardous is a political not scientific one. The fact that chrysotile asbestos has not been listed on Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention does not mean that it is a “safe” material.5
As the appeal was working its way through judicial channels, news arrived about diplomatic plans by Russia, the world’s biggest asbestos producer, to suborn the democratic right of the Indonesian government to protect citizens from avoidable asbestos-related diseases and early deaths. According to a December 9, 2025 article on the news portal Voice of Indonesia, a Memorandum of Understanding had been signed between Indonesia and Russia entitled: Cooperation in the Field of Scientific Research on the “Safe Use of Chrysotile Asbestos.” There is no question, judging by the title, that this is yet another attempt by asbestos vested interests to prevent the Indonesian Government from taking preventative measures on the asbestos hazard such as the implementation of the 2024 Supreme Court judgment mandating that all asbestos-cement roofing products carry warning labels.6
This is not the first time that asbestos stakeholders exploited diplomatic avenues to preserve asbestos markets. Throughout the 20th century the Canadians used their embassies and ambassadors to broadcast pro-asbestos propaganda. Once Russia took on the mantle of global-asbestos-cheerleader-in-chief, it pursued multiple strategies to counter growing asbestos criticism including multilateral pacts such as The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the Eurasian Economic Union [EAEU] and its Member States, of the one Part, and the Republic of India, of the other Part.
In December 2016 a 259-page feasibility study detailing the provisions of the India-EAEU FTA was circulated; amongst “the most important potential benefits” for Russia and Kazakhstan of the “full tariff liberalization” would be the opportunity for increased sales of asbestos. In other words, in return for allowing two of the world’s asbestos giants unfettered access to the largest national asbestos market, which in 2014 consumed ~400,000 tonnes of asbestos imports, India would be permitted to export duty-free tea, cucumbers, gherkins, grapes, concentrates of coffee, etc. to Kazakhstan and Russia.7
Pursuant to a Google search on December 13, 2025, it was not possible to establish whether that agreement was ever finalized. There was, however, a November 2025 update on progress regarding negotiations for an India–EAEU Free Trade Agreement – we were unable to establish whether this was the same treaty as that discussed in 2016. 8
I am in no doubt that this Russian initiative is just one of many designed to lock Indonesia into a trade that would simultaneously enrich Russians and condemn Indonesians to early graves. We will monitor developments and report back!
December 16, 2025
_______
1 IBAS Article Archive: Indonesia:
https://ibasecretariat.org/abs_archive_articles.php?sel=c&c_val=Indonesia
IBAS News Archive: Indonesia
https://ibasecretariat.org/abs_archive_news.php?sel=c&c_val=Indonesia
2 Suraya, A., Priharto, O. Mapping Asbestos Vulnerability in Indonesia Using Earthquake Vulnerability June 25, 2025.
https://jpmph.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.3961/jpmph.24.749
Dr. Ir. Bambang Setiaji,
It's Time for Indonesia to Breathe Clean Air Without Asbestos: Ending the Invisible Danger. November 14, 2025.
https://www.badankebijakan.kemkes.go.id/en/saatnya-indonesia-menghirup-udara-bersih-tanpa-asbes-mengakhiri-bahaya-yang-tak-terlihat/
ILO and INA-BAN. Recognizing the dangers of asbestos. May 8, 2019.
https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/recognizing-dangers-asbestos
3 Kazan-Allen, L. Industry Attacks Consumers Historic Win Against Chrysotile Asbestos. October 14, 2024.
https://ibasecretariat.org/lka-industry-attacks-consumers-historic-win-against-chrysotile-asbestos.php
4 Letter from Local Initiative for OSH Network – Indonesia (LION) and LPKSM Yasa Nata Budi. December 8, 2025.
5 Kazan-Allen, L. Rotterdam Convention Primer 2023. May 9, 2023.
https://www.ibasecretariat.org/lka-rotterdam-convention-primer-2023.php
6 Sofia, N. Indonesia-Russia Finalize Key MoUs Ahead of INNOPROM 2026. December 9, 2025.
https://rri.co.id/en/international/2030848/indonesia-russia-finalize-key-mous-ahead-of-innoprom-2026
7 Kazan-Allen, L. Twenty-first Century Diplomacy: Gherkins for Asbestos. February 19, 2017.
https://ibasecretariat.org/lka-twenty-first-century-diplomacy-gherkins-for-asbestos.php
8 Commerce Secretary reviews the India–Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) Free Trade Agreement negotiations in Moscow. November 16, 2025.
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2190478®=3&lang=2
