Recycling Ships Under Two Conventions: Common Misconceptions

 

In November 2024, BIMCO launched a Ship Recycling Alliance to help accelerate safe and environmentally sound ship recycling of ships through the coordination of the voices of the ship recycling industry and the shipping industry. The alliance was also launched to help facilitate the global implementation of the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships 2009 (HKC) prior to its entering into force in June 2025.

As both industries navigate the entering into force of the HKC and the legal inconsistencies with the “Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal” (BC), together with its “Ban” amendment, BIMCO has repeatedly called for those inconsistencies to be solved. The BC is almost universally ratified (191 Parties), its Ban amendment has been ratified by 104 countries, while the HKC has 24 Parties so far.

Meanwhile, we are repeatedly seeing misconceptions relating to the complex interrelations of the two conventions and their co-existence. The recent article entitled “Breaking Ships, Building Consensus - How the Basel Ban and HKC Can Coexist” by Prof Ishtiaque Ahmed conveys misunderstandings on some central aspects of both Conventions and as a result draws erroneous conclusions. In view of the importance and timeliness of this matter, it is essential to provide a response.

In 2004, the governing body of the BC - realizing that its convention did not work as intended on end-of-life ships - formally requested IMO to develop a purpose-built convention for the recycling of ships (decision VII/26). The BC and its Ban amendment have no cognizance of the maritime concept of “flag State,” which is embedded in all IMO conventions and in UNCLOS. Instead, BC recognises the State of export (of the wastes), the State of import, and any transit States. Conveniently, for purposes of the BC, the State of export of an end-of-life ship has been considered to be the port from which the ship commenced its last voyage, with no consideration given to the ship’s flag State or the State where the shipowner is registered or domiciled.

From 26 June 2025, with BC, the Ban amendment, and the HKC all being in force, some practical questions arise for a ship that is heading for recycling:

(a) Should HKC be the sole Convention that regulates ship recycling (being the most recently developed; being subject specific; and having been developed following the initial request of the BC’s governing body)?

(b) Should both Conventions apply fully to end-of-life ships? And if so, what happens if some of the key requirements of the two Conventions are contradictory?

(c) Did the developers of the HKC design its requirements in ignorance of the requirements of the BC and its Ban amendment, or did they account for any necessary sharing of regulatory responsibility so that there would be no conflict?

Prof. Ahmed’s article promotes the view that both Conventions must apply at the same time to end-of-life ships. It offers an interpretation as to how the division of responsibility should work between the two Conventions and states that: “In this light, Basel regulates whether and under what conditions ships may cross borders for dismantling, while HKC sets the substantive standards for dismantling once a vessel has lawfully arrived at a facility.”

In other words, the article claims that the decision of where a ship is allowed to sail to be recycled should be taken by the BC and, where applicable, by its Ban amendment. Regarding HKC, it said: “HKC governs the dismantling process itself, not what happens beyond the facility gate”. And also: “In this light, Basel regulates whether and under what conditions ships may cross borders for dismantling, while HKC sets the substantive standards for dismantling once a vessel has lawfully arrived at a facility.”

This interpretation ignores a large part of the design of the HKC, which regulates the process that has to be followed before the flag State can issue the International Ready for Recycling Certificate (IRRC) which is needed before recycling can start. This process ensures that the shipowner, the flag State, the ship recycling facility and the authorities of the recycling State are all in agreement for the recycling to take place, having taken into account the capacity of the recycling facility to accept and dispose of hazardous materials, etc.

The article in question also contains some statements that mistakenly arrive at a conclusion as to which Convention should regulate what process, stating that “By prohibiting OECD-flagged vessels from being dismantled in non-OECD states, Basel directly constrains access to the very yards where global capacity is concentrated.”  This is a mistaken understanding, since the BC and its Ban amendment do not concern themselves with the flag of the ship, nor the nationality of its owner, but only with the ports of export, import and any transit States. According to the BC and its Ban amendment, a Chinese-owned, Chinese-flagged ship would be detained if it were to depart from a port in the EU to return to China for recycling. The BC would treat it as an illegal export of hazardous waste from an OECD country to a non-OECD country.

Another misconception that is likely causing confusion is the statement that: “Basel’s Ban need not mean permanent exclusion for non-OECD shipbreaking states. Rather, it creates an incentive to transform. By upgrading facilities to OECD-equivalent standards, institutionalizing strong worker protections, and establishing transparent downstream waste management systems, South Asian yards can credibly argue for “functional equivalency.” And again: “By investing in OECD-standard infrastructure, pursuing recognition and certification, and aligning domestic regimes with international best practice, non-OECD states including South Asia can maintain their central role in global recycling under both frameworks.” These statements are incorrect. There is no provisions in the BC that would allow an upgraded individual recycling facility in a non-OECD country to be recognized as “functionally equivalent”. In fact, there are already recycling facilities in South Asia that operate with better standards compared to some OECD based facilities, but the BC has no mechanism to recognize this.

The HKC’s developers accounted for sharing of regulatory responsibility with the BC in relevant domains, so that there would be no conflict between the two conventions. The BC has two main pillars to support its aims: (1) It restricts the transboundary movements of hazardous and other wastes, except where this is in accordance with the principles of environmentally sound management (ESM) and provides a regulatory system for when transboundary movements are permissible (with the process of the Prior Informed Consent – or PIC); and (2) the Convention focusses on the reduction of hazardous waste generation and the promotion of ESM of hazardous wastes, wherever the place of disposal.

HKC, in its regulation 20, makes a distinction between practices related to the environmentally sound management of wastes within and outside of the ship recycling facility. It requires the identification, labelling, packaging and removal of all hazardous materials from the ship and their ESM within the boundary of the ship recycling facility, while it states that practices related to the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes outside the recycling facility shall be done in facilities approved by the State (in line with its obligations under the Basel Convention).

However, when it comes to BC’s PIC procedure and its Ban amendment, both of which are problematic in the context of shipping’s governance and operations, HKC replaces these with a process that relies in the consent being agreed between the ship’s flag state and the recycling state. In HKC, the recycling State is responsible for authorizing (or refusing to authorize) its recycling facilities and for setting any limitations it decides on the allowed types and quantities of hazardous materials, as well as on any limitations it may wish to impose on the types and sizes of ships to be recycled. It issues the facility with the Document of Authorization to conduct Ship Recycling (DASR for short). The flag State on the other hand is responsible for the type and quantities of hazardous materials that are found onboard its ships by issuing a statutory certificate that identifies their quantities and location (International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous Materials, or ICIHM).

Before a ship can be sent for recycling, the recycling facility must obtain approval from the recycling State for the Ship Recycling Plan (SRP) that it has produced based on the specific ship’s particulars, plans and ICIHM. If the SRP is approved, the ship’s flag State conducts a final survey on the ship to confirm that the ship fulfils its ICIHM and that the SRP accounts for all the hazardous materials in its IHM and that it has been approved by the recycling State. Then the flag State issues the International Ready for Recycling Certificate (IRRC). Without a valid IRRC no recycling can be allowed to start by the recycling State.

In conclusion, the HKC was designed to replace the PIC and the Ban amendment of the BC with the IRRC process, which ensures the informed consent of flag, transit, and importing States prior to allowing any recycling to take place. At the same time, the HKC was always intended to coexist with the Basel Convention by relying on the obligation that the Parties to the BC already have to oversee the ultimate management and disposal of hazardous wastes outside the boundaries of recycling facilities.

Dr Nikos Mikelis is an Independent Consultant and Chairman of BIMCO’s Ship Recycling Alliance.