BAN OEWG15 DELEGATE ALERT #1: Basel Parties Must Continue to Stand Firm Against Shipping Industry efforts to Deny Basel Competency over Waste Ships

BAN OEWG15 DELEGATE ALERT #1

June 15 2026

Basel Parties Must Continue to Stand Firm Against Shipping Industry efforts to Deny Basel Competency over Waste Ships

Support Dual Competency of Hong Kong and Basel Conventions

IMO and Shipping Industry Still Pressing Basel Parties to Stand Down

As we warned at the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) the shipping industry is seeking to cap their decades-long strategy to insert a weaker set of rules governing the international trade and management of end-of-life ships by asking Basel Parties to ignore Basel obligations whenever a country concerned is also a Party to their alternative Convention -- the IMO Hong Kong Convention.

The Article 11 "IMO Only" Gambit

They want to do this by invoking Article 11 of the Convention and calling the Hong Kong Convention an Article 11 agreement. There is but one glaring problem with that strategy and that is the fact that Article 11 Agreements "shall stipulate provisions which are not less environmentally sound than those provided for by this Convention in particular taking into account the interests of developing countries." Clearly, the Hong Kong Convention does not live up to the bar of providing "an equivalent level of control" and indeed that was the whole point.

Legal scholars have weighed into the debate most recently with submissions to the European Commission. See NGO Shipbreaking Platform, the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) as well as Dr. Ludwig Kramer all explaining in detail why the two Conventions are far from equivalent in their levels of environmental control and protection.

For the Basel Parties the issue came to a head in 2011at COP10 in Cartagena, Colombia. As noted in Decision 10/17 of that meeting, the Parties could not agree on that matter and so acknowledged that the "Basel Convention should continue to assist countries to apply the Basel Convention as it relates to ships."

At COP17, in anticipation of the entry-into-force of the Hong Kong Convention (it entered into force on 26 June 2025), and without bothering to consult the Basel Secretariat about the legality or desirability of doing so, the IMO released a preliminary guidance document (IMO Circular HKSRC.2/Circ.1) that calls on Parties to both the Basel and the Hong Kong Conventions to notify the Basel Secretariat ‘the provisions of the Basel Convention shall not affect transboundary movements which take place pursuant to the [HK] Convention.’ In other words one UN treaty organization (IMO) is advising Parties to another UN treaty (Basel) - without consultation or consensus - that they should consider abrogating their Basel responsibilities.

Secretariat Proposes New Compromise Text

Following that provocative action IMO Guideline proposal, the subject was debated at COP17. It was decided that the debate should continue and comments by Parties were solicited to perhaps provide more of a Basel Party perspective to the IMO proposa.

Those comments have been summarized in Annex II of the Secretariat's Document prepared for the OEWG, UNEP/CHW/OEWG.15/INF/21, entitled "Revised provisional guidance on the implementation of the Hong Kong and Basel conventions with respect to the transboundary movement of ships intended for recycling and associated explanatory note." On the basis of these comments the Secretariat has, in Annex I, proposed a revised version of the Guidance for the Parties to consider with 2 new sections of Alternative Text -- Alternative 1 and 2.

Dual Competency is Not Redundancy, Nor Conflict -- it is the Way Forward

The IMO predicated their push last year on the notion that the Basel Convention and the Hong Kong Convention cannot possibly co-exist and were somehow in conflict with one another. But this is not, as we have learned, actually the case.

The alternative 1 text as found in Annex I of UNEP/CHW/OEWG.15/INF/21 calls out that false notion that the Hong Kong Convention does a better job of protecting human health and the environment from ships as waste or that only one working Convention at a time is possible.

Actually the Basel and Hong Kong Conventions do very different things, with very different purposes and requirements. As such, they are not duplicative. Further, they are not in conflict, as fulfilling one Convention's requirements does not in fact contradict or make impossible fulfilling the other's. The notion that it’s either one or the other is not supported by a careful reading of each. This truism was highlighted by Professor James Harrison, University of Edinburgh in his legal review of the matter. In fact Dr. Harrison clarifies that both can co-exist very well and together could provide the best levels of international environmentally sound management.

Indeed, when looking at the lifecycle of a ship, the Hong Kong Convention could be amended to do even more to cover green ship design and build, as well as minimizing hazardous wastes during the operational life of a vessel. Basel is then best suited to manage ships from the moment they are intended to be disposed of, including implementation of the Ban Amendment (Article 4a), and the PIC procedure (Article 6), giving Parties their Basel asserted sovereign right to refuse to consent to importation, and exporting countries the right to not export if they fear there is no guarantee of environmentally sound management (ESM) downstream. The actual operations of the recycling facility can best be done in accordance with both Conventions and with the most rigorous aspects of their respective guidance documents, while Basel will then maintain its full competency over the offsite downstream management of residual waste (where Hong Kong currently has no coverage).

For this reason we must approve the Alternative 1 text proposed by the Secretariat in Annex I.

But What About Remaining Loopholes?

And, at the same time, we know that the two Conventions were not created to work seamlessly with each other and for this reason loopholes and disconnects do exist which may be in need of further work to be undertaken once Alternative 1 is agreed. This is the value of some of the text of Alternative 2. For example, it is well known that there exists a dangerous loophole for application of the Basel Convention to ships. Due to their mobility, ships can too easily be ordered to make legally convenient transboundary movements before they might be declared as waste as a way of circumventing the Basel Convention’s obligations to obtain national (port state) consent for export and import or to apply the Basel Ban Amendment. The Hong Kong Convention is likewise fraught with loopholes of its own. For example, flag of convenience states have demonstrated little capacity to be incentivized to concern themselves with issues of human rights and sustainability. In reality, decisions to scrap ships are not made by flag states or port states in most cases. They are taken in offices in Hamburg, Copenhagen, Tokyo and other ship-owning hubs by the beneficial owners of ships.

Thus, Basel and Hong Kong shortcomings that are unique to the subject of ships, should be addressed together as part of the global agenda, not by working to deny each other's existence, but working to find ways to better implement the intent and purpose of both Conventions. If coherency of both is really the goal, it is logical, protective and efficient for both conventions to be streamlined in the future to combine regimes in the most effective and legally clear way. For example, Basel export status for ships could be placed on the state where the beneficial owner of the vessel is headquartered. Likewise, the all-important Basel clause "intent to dispose" may need to be better defined, and the procedure created by the Hong Kong Convention to obtain the Ready-to-Recycle Certificate, including preparing the vessel for recycling, could be improved to require that this certificate is registered at the State of Beneficial Ownership in advance of the actual last voyage to the ship-recycling facility.

In this way, transparency about the movement of ships towards a ship recycling facility would be improved and the Basel Convention's PIC procedure and Ban Amendment readily applied.

The closure of loopholes and streamlining is the subject of most of the text of Alternative 2 in the Secretariat document's Annex I.

The Secretariat's Proposed Revised Guideline

The Proposed Revised Guidance Document is identical in its first two paragraphs:

.1 States that are Parties to the Hong Kong Convention but are not Parties to the Basel Convention should apply the requirements of the Hong Kong Convention;

.2 States that are Parties to the Basel Convention but are not Parties to the Hong Kong Convention should apply the requirements of the Basel Convention, including its Ban Amendment, if they have expressed their consent to be bound by it; and

But rather than just conclude, as the IMO had done, to ignore Basel in the case of Parties that have ratified both Conventions, the Secretariat has proposed two non-mutually exclusive alternative approaches:

Alternative 1: replace paragraph .3 with the following text or insert the following text as a new paragraph.

States that are Parties to both the Hong Kong Convention and the Basel Convention should implement the requirements of both conventions in a coordinated manner, recognizing that the Hong Kong Convention establishes ship-specific requirements relating to the design, construction, operation and preparation of ships for recycling and to the authorization of ship recycling facilities, while the Basel Convention establishes requirements relating to transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and other wastes and their environmentally sound management.

Under this approach, Parties should consider practical means to promote coordination, including information-sharing on intent to recycle or dispose of ships, coordination between relevant competent authorities, and clarification of the role of the International Ready for Recycling Certificate in relation to Basel Convention procedures, without prejudice to the rights and obligations of Parties under the Basel Convention.

Alternative 2: replace paragraph .3 with the following text or insert the following text as a new paragraph .4 (or as a new paragraph .5)

Parties consider that further work is needed before revised guidance can be agreed with respect to States that are Parties to both the Hong Kong Convention and the Basel Convention, including with respect to issues identified in Party submissions and further reflected in observer submissions, such as:

(a) The application of Article 11 of the Basel Convention;

(b) The relationship between the Basel Convention prior informed consent procedure and the Hong Kong Convention certification process;

(d) Information-sharing on intent to recycle or otherwise dispose of ships, as appropriate;

(e) Environmentally sound management of wastes arising from ship recycling, including downstream treatment and final disposal;

(f) Continued cooperation between the Secretariat of the Basel Convention and the International Maritime Organization, including in the context of the experience-building phase under the Hong Kong Convention.

The Most Appropriate Solution: Alternative 1 with elements of Alternative 2 Combined

In our view, Alternative 1 must replace the existing Paragraph 3. However, having said that, there is a great deal of merit in adding the additional work proposed in Alternative 2 as long as that work does not slow or prevent the conclusion of Alternative 1's legal assertion, but is done subsequent to such conclusion.

Thus, we propose the following text added with some few explanatory changes as indicated in our proposed Alternative 2 text:

.1 States that are Parties to the Hong Kong Convention but are not Parties to the Basel Convention should apply the requirements of the Hong Kong Convention;

Alternative 1: replace paragraph .3 with the following text ~~or insert the following text as a new paragraph .4~~

And include parts of Alternative 2 in the draft decision, and one additional phrase as follows (i.e. for adoption by the Parties at COP18 for future work for Basel Parties -- not as part of HKSRC.2/Circ.1)

~~Alternative 2: replace paragraph .3 with the following text or insert the following text as a new paragraph .4 (or as a new paragraph .5)~~

Parties consider that further work is needed ~~before revised guidance can be agreed with respect to States that are Parties to both the Hong Kong Convention and the Basel Convention,~~ to improve cooperation and implementation including with respect to issues identified in Party submissions and further reflected in observer submissions, such as:

(a) The application of Article 11 of the Basel Convention;

(b) The relationship between the Basel Convention prior informed consent procedure and the Hong Kong Convention certification process;

(d) Information-sharing on intent to recycle or otherwise dispose of ships, as appropriate;

(e) Environmentally sound management of wastes arising from ship recycling, including downstream treatment and final disposal;

Conclusions

It is well established that the Hong Kong Convention does not represent an "equivalent level of control" as required by Article 11 in order for Basel Parties to recognize other agreements or arrangements.
The Hong Kong Convention does not meet the bar of a valid Basel Article 11 Agreement with "provisions which are not less environmentally sound than those of the Convention in particular taking into account the interests of developing countries".
This has now become even more clear following entry into force of the Basel Convention's Ban Amendment (Article 4a).
Therefore, efforts by shipping industry interests, or countries representing such, to declare the Hong Kong Convention as a valid Article 11 Agreement must be summarily rejected.
Certainly, no such declarations of using Article 11 in this way can be asserted without joint concurrence in this view by the Parties of the Basel Convention collectively.
Oft repeated arguments that the two Conventions are in conflict or redundant should also be refuted as untrue.
Rather, because each instrument is different and each Convention adds its own layer of protection to the issue of a ship’s life-cycle management, dual competency is in fact the most legally correct and protective way forward.
Consideration should be given to conducting future work to find ways to close loopholes that persist in both Convention approaches and to create guidance between the two Conventions as to how such cooperation and dual implementation can be best accomplished nationally and internationally.

What is needed at OEWG15

→ 1. Support, as a matter of immediate priority, Alternative 1 of the Secretariat's Proposed Revised Guidance Text. Then, remove the language that would delay or postpone the above outcome in Alternative 2, but add much of the rest of text on further work needed. (as outlined above in blue text)

→ 2. Attend the Side Event on the Subject: A side event by BIMCO and the NGO Shipbreaking Platform, offering very different viewpoints on the way forward, will take place on June 23 at 13:30–14:30. Room to be announced.

→ 3. Ensure your Regional Group's position supports Basel's continued competency with respect to ships.

→ 4. Speak out in Plenary: On this important matter it would be very useful for all Parties concerned about the effort to erode the competence of the Basel Convention to make their views known loud and clear during the plenary.

→ 5. Speak out at Legal Working Group: When this issue is assigned to the working group, make sure your country is represented and takes the Dual Competency position as described in this Delegate Alert.

Summary: By removing the IMO's Paragraph 3 and replacing it with the Alternative 1 from the Secretariat, while adding some elements of the Alternative 2 language, we will achieve a balanced and preferred revised guidance. We recommend that the Parties seek to propose this draft to be adopted here at the OEWG provisionally, to be finalized permanently at COP18.

Bangladesh shipbreaking yard. Photo credit: NGO Shipbreaking Platform, 2022.

END