Ship Recycling: Legal Ambiguity Looms as Hong Kong Convention Nears Enforcement
As the shipping industry gears up for the entry into force of the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships (HKC) in June 2025, stakeholders are raising concerns over unresolved legal ambiguities. BIMCO, one of the largest international shipping associations, has highlighted the need for greater legal clarity regarding the interplay between the HKC and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention).
At the heart of the issue is the potential for shipowners and recycling stakeholders to face sanctions under the Basel Convention, despite adhering to the HKC’s requirements. This legal uncertainty threatens to undermine the HKC’s objectives, raising the stakes for the international community to provide clear guidance on how these two important international treaties will coexist.
Basel and Hong Kong Conventions: A Complex Relationship
The Basel Convention, adopted in 1989, aims to protect human health and the environment by regulating the movement of hazardous wastes across borders and preventing their transfer to countries unable to manage them responsibly. With 191 signatories, it is one of the most widely ratified international environmental agreements. Among its key provisions is the “Ban Amendment,” which prohibits the export of hazardous wastes from developed to developing countries.
The HKC, on the other hand, was adopted in 2009 to address the growing environmental and human rights concerns surrounding ship recycling, particularly in countries such as India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. The HKC seeks to ensure that ships are recycled in facilities that meet stringent safety and environmental standards, offering a more sustainable approach to end-of-life vessel disposal.
However, tensions arise because ships destined for recycling often contain hazardous materials such as asbestos, heavy metals, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), classifying them as hazardous waste under the Basel Convention. This classification means that transboundary movements of such ships could potentially fall under the Basel Convention’s stringent controls, creating a legal grey area when those ships are also subject to the HKC’s provisions.
Provisional Guidance Offers Some Relief
To address these concerns, the international community recently published provisional guidance on the implementation of the HKC and the Basel Convention. The guidance seeks to clarify the responsibilities of member states under each treaty, depending on their status as parties to the conventions. It outlines three scenarios:
- States that are parties to the HKC but not the Basel Convention: These states should apply the requirements of the HKC.
- States that are parties to the Basel Convention but not the HKC: These states should adhere to the Basel Convention’s requirements, including the Ban Amendment if they have agreed to it.
- States that are parties to both the HKC and the Basel Convention: These states, including those bound by the Ban Amendment, are expected to operate under an understanding that Basel Convention provisions should not obstruct transboundary movements carried out under the HKC framework.
This provisional guidance marks a significant step toward harmonizing the two conventions. However, BIMCO remains cautious, noting that further work is needed to ensure legal certainty.
BIMCO’s Concerns: The Need for Clearer Legal Safeguards
BIMCO emphasizes that, while the provisional guidance is a positive development, it falls short of providing absolute legal assurances. One of the organization’s key concerns is that all current HKC signatories are also parties to the Basel Convention. This reality makes the first scenario outlined in the guidance—where the HKC binds a state but not the Basel Convention—virtually impossible.
Given this overlap, BIMCO argues that the risk of conflicting legal obligations is significant. Without explicit guarantees, shipowners who comply with the HKC could still face sanctions under the Basel Convention. For example, a ship flagged under a state that is party to both conventions might be recycled in a facility meeting HKC standards but still run afoul of Basel Convention requirements, particularly if hazardous materials are involved.
This dual compliance burden could disincentivize shipowners from adhering to the HKC, undermining its objective of promoting safe and environmentally sound recycling practices. BIMCO calls for further clarification to ensure that compliance with the HKC provides a robust legal shield against potential sanctions under the Basel Convention.
Industry Implications: A Potential Compliance Minefield
The stakes are high for the global shipping industry. Ship recycling is a critical component of the maritime lifecycle, with thousands of vessels reaching the end of their operational lives annually. Ensuring that these ships are dismantled in an environmentally responsible manner is essential to reducing the industry’s ecological footprint.
However, the current legal uncertainty creates a compliance minefield for shipowners, who may face conflicting obligations depending on the jurisdictions involved. This situation is particularly concerning given the economic pressures many shipowners already face, including fluctuating freight rates, rising fuel costs, and the ongoing push for decarbonization.
For shipowners operating in good faith, the risk of inadvertent non-compliance is a significant concern. They could face penalties, reputational damage, or even legal action, despite adhering to the HKC’s rigorous standards.
The Path Forward: A Call for Global Cooperation
As the clock ticks toward the HKC’s enforcement date, the international community has a critical window of opportunity to resolve these legal ambiguities. BIMCO and other industry stakeholders are urging member states to work together to align the two conventions more effectively.
One potential solution could involve formal amendments or supplementary agreements that explicitly recognize HKC compliance as fulfilling Basel Convention obligations for ships intended for recycling. Such measures would provide the legal certainty the industry needs while maintaining the integrity of both conventions.
Another approach could involve enhanced collaboration between the conventions’ governing bodies, fostering a more integrated regulatory framework. This cooperation could include joint monitoring, reporting mechanisms, and capacity-building initiatives to support member states in implementing both conventions effectively.
Conclusion: Striking a Balance for Sustainable Ship Recycling
The successful implementation of the HKC represents a pivotal moment for the global shipping industry’s sustainability journey. By ensuring that ships are recycled in an environmentally sound and socially responsible manner, the HKC offers a pathway to reducing the sector’s ecological footprint while addressing critical human rights concerns.
However, achieving these goals requires resolving the current legal uncertainties with the Basel Convention. As BIMCO has pointed out, unequivocal guidance is essential to prevent shipowners from facing conflicting legal obligations. By working together, the international community can ensure that the HKC delivers on its promise, paving the way for a more sustainable and responsible future for ship recycling.
