The debate over end-of-life ship recycling has never been more urgent. With the recent entry into force of the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships (HKC) on 26 June 2025, governments, industry, and civil society are once again grappling with the unresolved question of how this new instrument interacts with the older and broader Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. At stake is not only the proper interpretation of international law but also the protection of human health and the environment in some of the world’s most vulnerable regions.
For ship recycling states such as Bangladesh, which dominate global dismantling capacity, the Basel–HKC conflict has profound practical implications. The Basel Convention provides a comprehensive system for controlling the cross-border and downstream movement of hazardous waste, designating competent authorities to oversee compliance. In Bangladesh, under the constitutional “Rules of Business” that allocate responsibilities among ministries, this role belongs exclusively to the Department of Environment (DoE). Once asbestos, heavy metals, and other hazardous substances are stripped from a vessel and removed from the yard, their transport to treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) falls squarely within Basel’s remit—and under the DoE’s jurisdiction.
By contrast, the HKC is deliberately narrower. Negotiated under the auspices of the IMO, it focuses primarily on shipyard-level practices: worker safety, facility certification, and environmentally sound methods of cutting, dismantling, and waste removal inside the yard. The HKC does not extend beyond the yard gate. It does not govern what happens when hazardous materials leave the premises. The IMO itself has acknowledged that it has no mandate over downstream waste management, which remains a matter of domestic law and, internationally, Basel.
This division of labor should make the picture clearer: HKC & Basel inside the yard, Basel outside the yard. Yet in practice, the simultaneous existence of two treaties has generated confusion and, in some cases, intentional misinterpretation. Powerful stakeholders within the global shipping industry have promoted the view that HKC, being the newer and more “specific” treaty, should take precedence as per the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaty (VCLT). This argument appeals to states eager to facilitate the ship recycling business, but risks sidelining Basel’s more stringent downstream obligations.
The danger is not theoretical. In Bangladesh, the Ministry of Industries (MoI), the Competent Authority to govern ship recycling, supported by donor-funded projects, has begun to assume semi-regulatory roles that properly belong to the Department of Environment (DoE) under the Rules of Business following the constitution of Bangladesh. While not promulgating binding rules, the MoI’s issuance of voluntary guidelines nonetheless influences practice in ways that affect the DoE’s constitutional mandate under the Rules of Business. For example, the ongoing consultation on the draft “Guidance on Hazardous Waste Collection & Transport Systems from Ship Recycling Facilities” under projects led by the Ministry of Industry and funded by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) illustrates a quiet but consequential encroachment on environmental authority. Even though the document has not yet been formally adopted and carries no binding force, the very process of developing such guidance under the auspices of the MoI signals a shift in institutional influence over environmental governance in the ship recycling sector.
According to the Rules of Business, the MoI’s mandate is to promote commerce, investment, and industrial development—not to regulate or influence environmental matters. When the Department of Environment is bypassed in any form, the result is a dilution of constitutional safeguards for environmental governance and the emergence of a conflict of interest, as responsibilities shift from environmental oversight toward the advancement of business interests.
The funding dynamics are critical. With virtually no international projects—particularly those related to ship recycling in Bangladesh—channeling resources through the DoE, the department lacks both the incentive and institutional capacity to develop Basel-based regulations, guidelines, or enforcement mechanisms. In contrast, ministries tasked with promoting industry receive more direct donor support, often linked to technical assistance projects. The result is an institutional imbalance that tilts governance toward business facilitation. Environmental oversight is weakened, not by overt deregulation but by subtle shifts in jurisdiction and funding priorities.
This dynamic reflects what can be described as environmental colonialism. It is not the traditional colonialism of political domination, but a new form rooted in global asymmetries of power, finance, and influence. In the realm of ship recycling, powerful shipping nations and industry associations shape the agenda, ensuring that international rules accommodate business interests. Meanwhile, environmental considerations—particularly those affecting communities near shipyards and TSDFs—are treated as secondary.
In Bangladesh, where ship recycling is a critical economic sector, the pressures are immense. The industry provides employment and foreign exchange earnings, making it politically sensitive. Yet the environmental and health consequences of mishandled hazardous waste are equally immense. When downstream controls are weakened or neglected, the burden falls on local communities, workers, and ecosystems. The absence of strong NGO voices and limited public awareness exacerbate the problem, allowing industry-aligned narratives to dominate.
The entry into force of the HKC should not be misinterpreted as a license to dilute Basel. Both treaties can and must coexist. The HKC is valuable for improving working conditions and environmental practices within shipyards. Basel remains indispensable for ensuring that once waste leaves the yard, it is managed in a manner consistent with international environmental standards. For Bangladesh, and for other ship recycling states, clarity on this division of responsibility is critical.
The path forward requires several steps. First, Bangladesh's domestic law should explicitly confirm the division of jurisdiction: HKC governs dismantling activities within the yard, while Basel applies to all downstream hazardous waste activities. Such clarity would prevent regulatory overlap and close the door to opportunistic interpretations.
Second, environmental authorities such as the DoE must be strengthened with resources, authority, and political backing. Without adequate capacity, even the clearest legal mandate cannot be enforced effectively.
Third, international programs supporting ship recycling must align with Basel’s downstream obligations. Projects addressing hazardous waste transport or disposal should be anchored in Basel, not in IMO’s shipping-centered framework.
Finally, civil society must play a more active role. NGOs and local communities can provide the counterbalance needed to ensure that industry interests do not monopolize policy development.
Ultimately, aligning Basel and HKC within the framework of the Rules of Business is essential not only for legal coherence but for environmental justice. Failure to respect these boundaries risks perpetuating a form of environmental colonialism in which developing countries bear the toxic burdens of global commerce without adequate protection. Respecting Basel’s jurisdiction once hazardous waste leaves the yard, and empowering Bangladesh's DoE to carry out its mandate, are not obstacles to business. They are prerequisites for ensuring that ship recycling is safe, sustainable, and fair.
If the global community is serious about sustainability, it must acknowledge that commercial imperatives cannot be allowed to erode environmental safeguards. The HKC may be more specific and new, but Basel remains vital. Together, and only together, can they provide the framework needed to transform ship recycling from a site of risk into a model of responsible industry.
Dr. Ishtiaque Ahmed is a Professor and the Chair of the Department of Law at North South University, Bangladesh. A former merchant marine engineering officer, he earned his Doctor of the Science of Law (J.S.D.) from the Center for Oceans and Coastal Law at the University of Maine School of Law, USA, where he specialized in ship recycling law and policy. Dr. Ahmed has also worked with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) as a legal consultant, where he played a central role in drafting Bangladesh’s Ship Recycling Rule and revising the Ship Recycling Act. His academic and professional expertise lies at the intersection of maritime law, environmental regulation, and the development of sustainable ship recycling practices. He can be reached at ishtiaque.ahmed@northsouth.edu.
The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.
The maritime industry has faced an extraordinary period of disruption over the past few years, from the Red Sea crisis and Ukraine conflict, to continued piracy threats in South East Asia. As we navigate these challenges, the lessons learned are reshaping how we approach maritime security globally. Drawing from extensive experience contributing to the International Chamber of Shipping's Maritime Security Guide and frontline observations of recent crises, it's clear that the industry's resilience has been tested and proven, but significant challenges lie ahead.
