Basel vs. Hong Kong? Why the “Conflict” Narrative Misses the Point

The ongoing debate around ship recycling governance frequently centers on the relationship between the Basel Convention (BC) and the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships (HKC).

A recent article; “HKC Certification Can’t Substitute for the Basel Convention”, published by Prof. Dr. Ishtiaque Ahmed, raises some questions about the functioning of, and interaction between, these two UN conventions. In the article, one UN Convention is characterized as an instrument based on strict state-to-state oversight, requiring direct, formalized and accountable consent before any transboundary movement. By contrast, the other UN Convention is portrayed as an industry-oriented solution, introducing a consent procedure that does not constitute a negotiated or acknowledged agreement between states and with its certification process not functioning as an instrument of intergovernmental consent.

The article concludes that Bangladesh, India or Pakistan - or any other recycling state - cannot rely on the HKC’s International Ready for Recycling Certificate (IRRC) as a substitute for Basel’s “strict state-to-state” consent. Nor can it legitimately issue or facilitate such certification in a way that effectively replaces the role of the exporting state. To do so would, according to the author, seriously undermine the core safeguard mechanisms of the Basel regime.

While open discussion on this topic is welcome, the purpose, mechanisms, and intent of the HKC are too often misunderstood. This article will address three main points:

- The core safeguard mechanisms of the BC

- Governance under UN conventions

- The roles of flag states versus exporting states.

Core safeguard mechanisms undermined by introducing the IRRC

From the outset, the article states that the HKC IRRC procedure cannot substitute the BC Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure, warning that anyone who suggests otherwise undermines the core safeguards that the BC was deigned to uphold.

The suggestion that HKC compliance undermines Basel’s core safeguards is incorrect, as no party has sought to weaken the Basel PIC. More importantly, while Basel’s safeguard mechanisms work perfectly well for packaged hazardous waste streams, they have never operated effectively for ships and ship recycling in the first place. The PIC mechanism does not provide meaningful oversight of end-of-life ships, nor does it prevent unsafe or environmentally harmful recycling in practice. The legacy of past substandard ship recycling practices serves as evidence of this. The HKC therefore does not replace an effective system - rather, it was created because there was no functioning global regime for the recycling of ships.

We believe that the procedures under the BC (and the EU Waste Shipment Regulation) have failed to positively impact the regulation of end-of-life ship recycling on a global scale. This raises the question of the mentioned “core safeguards” and the claims that they are at risk of being undermined. Portraying HKC implementation as an erosion of Basel protection risks rewriting history and obscuring why the HKC was needed in the first place.

Governance under UN conventions

Furthermore, the arguments in the article overlook the fact that that UN conventions are governed equally by states. It is not correct that the HKC IRRC is an agreement between a state and a private operator, as both the HKC’s IRRC and the BC’s PIC rely on approval and consent by the relevant states.

The distinction lies not in who governs them, but in what they govern: the BC addresses waste movement and treatment while the HKC regulates ships and their recycling. Neither convention is an industry or voluntary regime. In fact, both are intergovernmental UN treaties which are negotiated, adopted and ratified by states and implemented and enforced through national legislation and competent authorities.

Stating otherwise causes confusion. States—not the industry—regulate and enforce compliance. Whether designated as flag or exporting states, the obligations assigned by both conventions remain with the states.

Flag state vs. exporting state: legal and practical roles in ship recycling

Another point concerns the approach to the competence of the states involved. The article asserts that the flag state concept was never meant to replace territorial export control, suggesting it merely reflects jurisdiction over the vessel, not authority over its disposal. Furthermore, it claims that there is a widespread practice of treating the flag state as the de facto exporting state for Basel purposes.

In practice, however, there is no intention to make the flag state the exporting state; it is quite simply not possible because the BC does not acknowledge the existence of the flag state. Therefore, it is inaccurate to state that it is common practice to treat the flag state as the de facto exporting state for Basel purposes.

Nonetheless, it is evident that the flag state is the authority most closely connected to the ship throughout its life. The flag states oversee IHM surveys, certificates, and all matters related to safety of the ship, its crew and environmental regulations—including when the decision to recycle the ship is made—unlike the BC authority in the exporting state.

Lastly, a final point to address is the view that an exporting state can be meaningfully identified in the context of ship recycling. In reality, there is no factual link between an end-of-life ship and any exporting state as defined by the BC. The waste contained within a ship is not produced in or by an exporting state, nor is it stored or managed there. Instead, it develops gradually over decades of international trading, maintenance and operations across multiple jurisdictions, often far from the state and the port where the ship is located when recycling is considered. As a result, environmental authorities in the exporting state are generally less acquainted with the ship, including its operational, practical and legal compliance requirements, as well as with the processes necessary to uphold enforcement measures on it.

Conclusion

Both the BC and the HKC function within a comprehensive regulatory system. Each is a UN intergovernmental treaty—negotiated, adopted, and ratified by states and implemented and enforced through national legislation and designated authorities. While states oversee both conventions, each one of them approaches ship recycling from different perspectives.

Assertions that HKC compliance diminishes Basel’s “core safeguards” is a misconception. There has been no initiative to weaken the BC; rather, its safeguards have historically proven ineffective when applied to ships. In fact, the HKC was established precisely because no effective global framework for ships existed. It was the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the BC that asked the IMO to develop mandatory requirements to ensure the environmentally sound management of ship dismantling. Suggesting that implementation of the HKC erodes Basel’s protections misrepresents the facts and obscures the underlying rationale for the HKC’s creation.

The BC can positively impact the safe and environmentally sound management of waste streams generated during the ship recycling process, but it remains the prerogative of BC Parties to determine their engagement in this area. Should the parties choose to engage more actively, they may find that the shipping and ship recycling industries are prepared to collaborate constructively.

We face a pivotal decision: either continue discussing how to best reconcile two UN Conventions—one of which was never intended to regulate ships going for recycling—or fully support the robust implementation of the Hong Kong Convention globally, which elevates standards in the recycling states and supports tangible environmental and safety progress. At this critical juncture, workers and the environment would benefit substantially from global support for an effective, enforceable, multilateral, legally binding framework. BIMCO advocates for the latter approach, and the solution is already here.

There is no doubt that the face of ship recycling has already changed under the prospects of the HKC coming into force - first in India, then in Bangladesh and now in Pakistan. The progress can be witnessed first-hand by anyone visiting the yards.

The HKC embodies years of multilateral negotiation involving governments, industry representatives, NGOs and international organisations. Its value should not be diminished.

Gudrun Janssens is Head of EU Engagement and oversees BIMCO's EU-related marine environment, safety and technical affairs from the Brussels office.

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.