Op-Ed: To Save Bangladesh's Ship Recycling Industry, Phase In the HKC

File image courtesy NGO Shipbreaking Platform

Published Apr 27, 2025 2:35 PM by Dr. Ishtiaque Ahmed

 

 

Bangladesh ratified the International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, known as the Hong Kong Convention (HKC), on 26 June 2023. The Convention will come into force globally on 26 June 2025. As one of the world’s largest ship recycling nations, Bangladesh now stands at a pivotal juncture in implementing its international obligations. On one hand, there is the challenge of meeting commitments to enhance environmental protection and worker safety; on the other, the urgent need to safeguard a critical sector of the national economy. This situation raises a vital question: after the Convention’s global entry into force, can ship recycling facilities that are not yet fully compliant with HKC standards continue to import end-of-life vessels for recycling after 26 June 2025?

At present, the Government of Bangladesh, amid uncertainty regarding the Convention’s implications, has suspended the issuance of permissions for ship imports intended for recycling. This suspension has caused significant disruption and embarrassment within the ship recycling industry, which has been operating for over 30 years and, since 2011, under formal authorization granted by the Ship Breaking and Recycling Rules, 2011. Globally, nearly 95% of end-of-life ships are dismantled in just four countries — Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Turkey. Bangladesh is crucial to international shipping, providing cost-effective ship recycling at a time of global facility shortages. Meeting nearly half of the world's recycling needs, Bangladesh remains vital for sustaining maritime trade.

The current state of Bangladesh’s ship recycling industry, however, is increasingly precarious. For several decades, India has been Bangladesh’s closest competitor in this sector. Today, approximately 82% of India’s ship recycling yards have already achieved compliance with the standards prescribed by the Hong Kong Convention (HKC). In stark contrast, nearly 90% of Bangladesh’s yards remain not fully compliant with the HKC requirements. Through strategic policymaking and substantial investment, India has successfully modernized its ship recycling facilities to meet international benchmarks. Crucially, India did not treat ship recycling merely as an environmental liability; instead, it recognized the sector’s immense potential as a global business opportunity and positioned itself accordingly from an early stage. Bangladesh, by contrast, has lagged behind — due to gaps in information dissemination, a lack of sustained political commitment, and inadequate government support.

Nonetheless, all is not lost. International law still offers Bangladesh a lawful pathway for phased implementation of the HKC. The pressing question now is whether Bangladesh will seize this opportunity — or whether it will constrain itself unnecessarily and risk driving a vital national industry toward collapse. International law does not require developing countries to meet developed-world environmental standards overnight. Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties establishes the principle of pacta sunt servanda, meaning that every treaty is legally binding on the countries that sign it, and must be carried out in good faith. This means a country cannot avoid its obligations or act dishonestly after agreeing to a treaty. It must make sincere and genuine efforts to fulfill the treaty's objectives, considering its own capacities and circumstances meaning states must make sincere efforts considering their capacities. The principle has become a widely accepted customary international law. Similarly, Principle 11 of the Rio Declaration emphasizes that environmental standards must reflect each country’s socio-economic conditions. Thus, phased implementation — or "progressive realization" — is a lawful approach for countries like Bangladesh.

By adopting structured development plans, maintaining oversight, and demonstrating genuine progress, Bangladesh can lawfully continue ship imports under a conditional authorization system. This would uphold the Hong Kong Convention’s core objectives without crippling the industry. Although the Ship Breaking and Recycling Rules, 2011 are not fully HKC-compliant, they provide a legal foundation for conditional authorizations through administrative action. Comprehensive reforms are expected with the new 2025 Rules currently being prepared by the government.

India’s enactment of the Recycling of Ships Act, 2019, and Pakistan’s gradual reforms offer clear precedents. Both show that demonstrating progress, even if full compliance is pending, keeps a country aligned with international law. Furthermore, ICJ rulings, such as in the Gabcikovo–Nagymaros Project case, and Articles 202 and 203 of UNCLOS, recognize the legitimacy of phased treaty implementation for developing nations. Bangladesh, therefore, can confidently adopt a phased, supervised transition path consistent with international law. 

A coherent and carefully considered decision is now essential within Bangladesh’s administrative framework. Responsibility for ship recycling lies with the Ministry of Industries and the Ship Recycling Board. Suspending the issuance of No Objection Certificates (NOCs) solely due to incomplete HKC implementation could be unconstitutional and unlawful. Articles 31 and 40 of the Constitution guarantee the right to conduct lawful business and protection under the law. Arbitrarily withholding NOCs from licensed yards authorized under the 2011 Rules could prompt legal action before the higher judiciary. Moreover, the principle of "legitimate expectation" applies. Stakeholders who invested based on government assurances of phased HKC implementation have a right to expect policy consistency. A sudden reversal would be open to legal challenge. The Supreme Court’s decision in Rabeya Basri Erin v. Bangladesh Biman strongly upheld this principle.

A review of the Hong Kong Convention shows that Articles 6 and 7, along with Regulation 9, directly govern ship recycling. Parties must authorize and register facilities, considering infrastructure, safety, and environmental standards, and ensure each ship has an approved Ship Recycling Plan (SRP) before recycling begins. Crucially, the Convention does not demand immediate full compliance, but promotes a balance between "progress" and "protection." IMO guidelines MEPC 210(63), MEPC 211(63) and MEPC 222(64) confirm that phased compliance is acceptable for developing countries, allowing continued operations under strict monitoring. A zero-tolerance approach would devastate Bangladesh’s ship recycling industry, causing massive job losses and economic disruption. A lawful solution remains: issuing conditional NOCs to support a progressive, supervised transition.

Given the current situation, it is imperative that Bangladesh urgently announces a Transition Plan. The government could adopt a framework that first defines minimum conditions for granting authorization of ship recycling facility subject to conditions such as immediate infrastructure upgrades, enhanced worker safety measures, and improved hazardous waste management. Yards could be categorized into three groups: A (fully compliant), B (progressing), and C (non-compliant). B-category yards could receive conditional NOCs tied to clear development milestones and regular third-party audits, while facilities failing to meet conditions would face suspension or revocation.

By following this approach, Bangladesh could fulfill its international obligations while protecting its vital ship recycling industry. International bodies like the IMO, financial institutions, and investors support phased implementation strategies, and Bangladesh could leverage this momentum to secure further technical assistance, including through programs like SENSREC Phase III. Demonstrating credible progress would also help maintain trust among global shipowners seeking HKC-compliant options.

It is now clear that Bangladesh now faces a choice between two paths: rigid inaction that risks industry collapse, or pragmatic, lawful transition that keeps the sector operational while advancing toward full compliance. The second path offers a stronger, safer, and more sustainable future. Immediate action, grounded in strategic foresight and innovation, is essential to preserving not just the industry, but also Bangladesh’s environmental, economic, and international standing.

Dr. Ishtiaque Ahmed is the Chairman and an Associate Professor in the Department of Law at North South University, Bangladesh. He holds a Doctor of Juridical Science (J.S.D.) degree from the Center for Oceans and Coastal Law at the University of Maine School of Law, USA, specializing in ship recycling law and policy. A qualified Barrister of Lincoln’s Inn, London, Dr. Ahmed has served as a legal consultant to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), where he contributed to drafting amendments to Bangladesh’s Ship Recycling Act and revising the Bangladesh Ship Recycling Rules. His academic and professional work focuses on maritime law, environmental regulation, and sustainable ship recycling practices.

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

 

Can Trump Really Approve Mining in International Waters?

Environmental lawyer Duncan Currie discusses fears deep sea miners could bypass a UN agreement and apply to mine under US law

Nodule collection robot built for deepsea mining (Allseas)

Published Apr 24, 2025 8:44 PM by Dialogue Earth

 

[By Regina Lam]

 

Pressure to open the international seabed for mining is mounting.

Last month, Canadian business The Metals Company (TMC) announced plans to apply to US authorities for permission to mine in international waters. That could mean bypassing a United Nations seabed regulator that has for years been considered the only body capable of giving such approval.

The news shocked environmentalists and governments who have been pushing for a mining moratorium to prevent damage to little-understood ecosystems.

Deep-sea mining involves harvesting minerals more than 200 metres below the surface. Would-be miners are mainly targeting nickel, copper, cobalt and manganese. These “critical minerals” are essential to modern technologies including smartphones, solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles. But collecting them could devastate vulnerable ecosystems, say those opposed to the plans.

Previously, most eyes had been focused on negotiations at the International Seabed Authority. ISA is a UN body that regulates seabed mining in international waters under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Now, TMC says that – thanks to legislation passed in 1980 – the US government has the authority to regulate US citizens’ commercial mining in international waters.

Reports indicate that US President Donald Trump could soon announce an executive order asserting his country’s right to exploit international seabeds, and allowing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – a US government agency – to give firms permission to mine.

Dialogue Earth spoke with Duncan Currie, a veteran environmental lawyer and long-time observer of negotiations at the ISA, about the announcement and what it means. Currie is a legal adviser to the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, which advocates for a mining moratorium.

The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Dialogue Earth: The Metals Company’s announcement on 27 March came when you were at a meeting of the International Seabed Authority. What was your immediate reaction?

Duncan Currie: My reaction was almost shock. Anger. Frustration. Almost every country that took the floor at the ISA meeting was deeply critical of the announcement.

There are two things to add to that. One is that the US hasn’t done anything yet in response to the announcement. 

Also, the announcement has already impacted the company’s relationships with the Pacific islands. The Pacific countries, such as Nauru, that have worked with the company to explore minerals and obtain commercial mining approval under the UN legal framework, must be feeling incredibly frustrated and confused.

Were you previously aware of the US’s 1980 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, which TMC says gives the US the ability to approve mining?

I knew about it. But I have always seen it, as I think most commentators have, as a belt-and-braces approach, a “just in case” sort of arrangement. The legislation was there in case the US needed to invoke it as part of the Unclos multilateral scheme. It’s not there as one or the other. It was there as part of the UN scheme.

Although the US did not ratify Unclos, it did sign an agreement in 1994 to amend the deep-seabed mining provisions of the convention, after it successfully negotiated all the changes it wanted. That indicates that they were comfortable with it. Also, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, countries that have signed a treaty have an obligation not to undermine its objective and purpose.

One legal issue lies in whether the US has persistently objected to part XI [which governs deep-sea mining]. Some in the US government would say they did in 1982 and 1983. However, the negotiations and the subsequent signing of the 1994 agreement show they are not in a position to oppose the provisions.

Can the US government unilaterally authorise mining operations via an executive order from the president?

In this context, number one, they shouldn’t do anything that undermines the provisions [of the 1994 agreement]. Number two, they are bound by customary international law to abide by Unclos.

It’s a big question whether the executive order – a US president’s directive to fast-track deep-sea mining permits – is forthcoming. The US recognises how incredibly important Unclos is to freedom of navigation, maritime boundaries and management of resources.

All of those things are governed by Unclos, which is essentially the constitution for the ocean. I think those in the US government will be very reluctant to take actions that would put in danger all those things Unclos provides.

What are the potential consequences of the US bypassing the UN regime and approving seabed mining?

A part of the problem is that it creates chaos. It creates uncertainty. I wouldn’t want to go down the lane of thinking about what will happen – because it could be quite severe. I’m still hoping that the US decides it’s a really bad idea.

Also, under international law, the metals cannot be sold. Let’s use illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing as an analogy. When a fishing vessel violates fishing regulations, it faces consequences, including not being able to unload its catch in various ports. Its catch also cannot be sold in several countries, like the US or the European Union. Similar things would apply to metals obtained in violation of Unclos.  

Other countries involved in the mining activities could also act. For example, the deep-sea collection system that The Metal Company used in their recent mining trial is owned by a Swiss-based offshore contractor, Allseas. Switzerland would be under legal obligations to ensure its nationals do not participate in such activity.

Where does this leave The Metals Company’s chances of mining under the UN regime?

As far as I can tell, the firm hasn’t decided on whether a mining application will be made under the US legislation, the ISA or both. The CEO of The Metal Company Gerard Barron’s comments to investors explicitly left the possibility open.

We’re only two months away from 27 June, the date the company said they would lodge an application to the ISA for an exploitation contract. We’re clearly getting a lot of disputes, chaos and difficulties around this issue. All of these give a stronger reason for a moratorium or a precautionary pause on mining. So that we can have some years when countries can say: “Okay, well, let’s just take a deep breath and consider the whole matter properly.”

Regina Lam is an ocean and special projects assistant editor at Dialogue Earth, based in London. She joined in 2021 and has worked at major Hong Kong newspapers and has reported for the BBC World Service. She holds an MSc in global affairs from King’s College London. Regina is interested in global ocean governance, environmental justice and what makes compelling storytelling and robust investigation in environmental journalism. She speaks Cantonese, Mandarin and English.

This article appears courtesy of Dialogue Earth and may be found in its original form here. 

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

 

U.S.-China Tariff Spat Will Boost Brazil's Exports - And Deforestation

Agricultural cargo loading at Santos, Brazil (File image Sabino Freitas Correa / CC BY SA 4.0)

Published Apr 27, 2025 3:23 PM by Dialogue Earth

 

[By André Duchiade]

The trade dispute between the United States and China is weakening the US position in the Chinese market. Tariffs of more than 200% and mutual retaliation are also fuelling expectations that Brazilian agribusiness will expand exports to China, while environmentalists warn of increased pressure on forest areas.

Products such as soy, corn, cotton, beef and chicken have the greatest potential for immediate demand growth, say experts. Having already consolidated its position in these markets, Brazil has a competitive advantage, especially given the possibility of a record grain harvest this year.

“Growth could be significant in the short term,” Camila Amigo, international analyst at the Brazil-China Business Council (CEBC), tells Dialogue Earth. “This has already happened in previous moments of the trade war, especially between 2018 and 2019.”

At that time, US President Donald Trump’s first administration increased tariffs on several countries, especially China, which retaliated. The confrontation affected global production chains and Brazil benefitted by taking over most of the US soy market in China, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

Now, newly increased foreign demand could raise Brazilian food prices, which have been rising faster than general inflation since the Covid-19 pandemic. Brazil’s logistical infrastructure for transporting grain, such as its ports, roads and railways, already has bottlenecks and could face congestion as exports increase, raising freight costs.

In addition, peaks in foreign demand for Brazilian agricultural commodities have historically also led to increased deforestation, especially in the Cerrado and the Amazon, according to Paulo Barreto, a researcher at the Amazon Institute for People and the Environment (Imazon). “If current conditions continue, if there is more demand, there will tend to be more deforestation again,” he says.

Studies and analysts indicate, for example, that Amazon deforestation jumped between 1995 and 2004 as Brazil’s agricultural areas and cattle population expanded to meet growing international demand for soy and beef.

The Wawi Indigenous territory borders a soybean plantation in the state of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Agricultural expansion has long put pressure on the Amazon forest and its traditional communities (Image: Flávia Milhorance / Dialogue Earth)

Brazil already leads in the Chinese market

Tensions between the United States and China began to rise in 2017, during Donald Trump’s first term in office, with the conflict coming to a head in 2018 as the two countries announced a range of tariffs upon each other’s goods. That year, in response to US measures, China imposed a 25% tariff on 106 American products.

Trade disputes simmered with the signing of a tentative agreement between Washington and Beijing in 2020, followed by a shift in political focus after Joe Biden took office the following year. Still, his administration largely upheld most Trump-era tariffs, and even increased rates on some Chinese products. Trump’s return to the presidency in 2025 has since reignited the conflict on a new scale.

Between 2020 and 2024, the United States managed to recover part of its soybean and beef exports to China. However, Brazil had already filled the gap left during the height of the trade war and consolidated its lead in the Chinese market.

In 2018, Brazil overtook the US to become China’s top agricultural supplier, shipping a total of USD 37 billion in goods, according to a study published this year by research institute Insper Agro Global.

Although other factors may have had an influence, shipments of Brazilian meat and soy to China grew significantly between 2016 – before the Trump administration’s disputes – and 2024, according to foreign trade data from the Brazilian government. Meat exports to China in that period increased eightfold, from 165,000 to 1.32 million tonnes, while soy sales increased by 88%.

Analysts believe the tariffs will cause Brazilian exports to grow less this time around, due to Brazil’s already consolidated position in the Chinese market. “The impact of this trade war on Brazil will not be as great as under the first Trump administration,” says Camila Amigo.

No one knows how long the trade war will continue, however. The US has been stepping up its pressure and China has signalled it will not let up. Even so, representatives of the Brazilian agricultural sector believe the advantage will not last.

“The comparative advantage is very short term… We can’t think we’re going to take away the US market in China,” says Ingo Plöger, vice-president of the Brazilian Agribusiness Association. “China knows where it can hit the United States and is already acting on it, and the United States also knows where it is limiting China. The countries will end up sitting down to negotiate and reach an agreement.”

Greater beef demand could mean more pastures

Around 90% of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon occurs to open up pastures, according to Imazon. Although 70% of the beef produced in Brazil is destined for the domestic market, the sudden increase in demand raises the risk of small and medium-sized producers expanding their areas irregularly, according to Niklas Weins, assistant professor at Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University.

“The expansion of the agricultural frontier is often linked to violence and the invasion of Indigenous or quilombola lands,” says Weins, the latter referring to descendants of Afro-Brazilian communities established by escaped slaves.

Today, Brazil exports meat to China from steers that are less than 30 months old, with strict health controls. However, the strict requirements on this so-called “boi China” – beef that meets the necessary Chinese standards – do not include environmental criteria. As such, cattle may be raised in areas of illegal deforestation.Cattle bred on open pasture in Cerquilho, in the countryside of São Paulo state. Brazil exports meat to China from steers subject to strict health controls, but largely limited environmental criteria (Image: Dan Agostini / Dialogue Earth)

Strong demand from China for beef has also been seen to put pressure on the Brazilian market by raising prices, encouraging livestock expansion, early slaughter and, in many cases, the advance of cattle into forest areas.

“The additional demand pushes some people to deforest,” says Barreto of Imazon. “Even if they’re not exporting to China, people start deforesting to meet domestic demand.”

Niklas Weins emphasises that the recent weakening of Brazil’s currency, the real, makes its exports even more competitive. In the first week following Trump’s announcement of so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on around 90 trading partners on 2 April, the market reacted with a boost for the dollar and a general fall in other currencies. In the first days of the month, the Brazilian real depreciated by 5.1%, the third highest rate in the world. “This will probably have a direct effect on food prices,” he adds.

Light and danger at the end of the tunnel

On the other hand, public policies aimed at sustainable agricultural expansion are also gaining momentum, according to Nathália Teles. She works on monitoring Brazil’s pastures at the Remote Sensing and Geoprocessing Laboratory of the Federal University of Goiás. Teles cites ways to encourage production in areas that are already open and underused. These are the ABC+ Plan – a national strategy to promote low-carbon agriculture – and the National Programme for the Conversion of Degraded Pastures, as well as the use of monitoring technologies.

“Deforestation is becoming less and less economically viable,” says Teles. “There is greater supervision and legal restrictions, as well as a high environmental and climate cost.”

However, there are still institutional gaps that increase the Amazon’s vulnerability to deforestation, says Paulo Barreto. These include the large extent of public lands not yet designated as protected or belonging to a group – a situation that encourages illegal occupation and speculation. They also include the absence of an effective cattle-tracking system, and inconsistent actions by public authorities.

The federal government has postponed crucial measures, such as regulating tracking and protecting undesignated public forests. In addition, rural credit policies allow finance to reach producers linked to deforestation. Even institutions like the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES), a shareholder in large meatpacking companies like JBS, have failed to control environmental risks, says Barreto. When contacted by Dialogue Earth, the Ministry of Agriculture did not reply to requests for comment.

Barreto says that deforestation is driven in part by flaws in public policies and the lack of requirements that Chinese beef be traceable. He says this has a solution: “If China adds an environmental demand to the requirements of the China beef, this could have positive effects, stimulating a more sustainable use of pastures without the need for deforestation.”

André Duchiade is a Brazilian journalist and translator based in Rio de Janeiro. He has worked for O Globo and Época and his work has been published in several national and international media, including The Scientific American, Sumaúma, The Intercept Brasil and Agência Pública.

This article appears courtesy of Dialogue Earth and may be found in its original form here. 

Top image: Agricultural cargo loading at Santos, Brazil (File image Sabino Freitas Correa / CC BY SA 4.0)

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

 

New Canadian Tankers to Shuttle Oil Products to East Coast Ports

Algoma is placing two product tankers in East Coast service for Irving Oil (Algoma)

Published Apr 28, 2025 5:52 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

Algoma Central Corporation, known for its dry bulk operations, has commissioned the first of two newly built product tankers that will be used for service in conjunction with Canada’s Irving Oil. The vessels will service Canada’s largest refinery with deliveries to ports in Atlantic Canada and the U.S. East Coast.

The Algoma East Coast arrived in St. John, New Brunswick today, April 28, after completing its inspections and entry into the Canadian shipping registry. It will be followed by the Algoma Acadian, which will arrive later this spring. She is currently in the Indian Ocean on her delivery run and they will need to undergo Canadian certification and registry before entering service. The vessels were built at the Hyundai Mipo Shipyard in South Korea and represent an investment of C$127 million (US$92 million) by Algoma in partnership with Irving Oil.

“These additions introduce a new asset class to the segment, enhancing our operational capabilities and expanding the markets we serve,” said Algoma’s President & CEO Gregg Ruhl. “This milestone in our newbuild journey has been incredible to witness, made possible through our collaboration with Irving and the dedication and expertise of our operations team.”

Algoma reports it has a fleet of 96 vessels, including 11 additional vessels under construction. It operates dry and liquid bulk carriers that serve critical industries throughout the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Region and internationally and reports its domestic dry-bulk fleet is the largest fleet in the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Seaway system.

The new ships are 37,000 dwt ice-class product tanker vessels ordered by Algoma and operating under long-term charter to Irving Oil, replacing two older vessels. They will be used to load products in Saint John for deliveries mostly to Halifax, Charlottetown and St. John's. They will also be used when needed for voyages to U.S. Atlantic Coast ports and other destinations such as Quebec and Montreal. With a capacity of 260,000 to 265,000 barrels, they will transport gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and other products.

To ensure that the tankers are future-ready, they are designed for potential methanol operations with an ABS Notation – Methanol Fuel Ready and also high voltage and shore power ready. They were designed with enhanced ballasting capabilities to optimize operations in the Bay of Fundy.

 

Video: Fishermen Scramble to Save Sheep as Dhow Tilts Off Yemen

Fishermen rushed to save the crew and sheep from the ocean (screen grab)

Published Apr 28, 2025 5:08 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

Video is making the rounds online showing the efforts by local fishermen in Yemen attempting to pluck sheep from the ocean after the vessel they were on began listing. According to some reports, the vessel which was traveling between Somalia and Djibouti ran aground off Aden while other reports place the vessel in the Bab al-Mandeb strait.

The pictures appear to show a typical dhow laden with the animals. Some reports are saying there were several thousand aboard and the vessel was badly overloaded. The weight may be the cause or contributed to the incident.

Fishermen reportedly from Ras Al-Arah in western Yemen rushed to the scene and were shown plucking the animals that were swimming around the vessel. Others can be seen falling or jumping from the vessel. The fishermen saved the crew of the vessel who are reported to be from Somalia.

 

Video shows Yemenis frantically rescuing hundreds of sheep from the Red Sea after a commercial ship ran aground off the coast of Yemen.

The vessel was heading for Djibouti when it capsized, leading to the drowning of more than 160 sheep, according to local sources. pic.twitter.com/a5hpUhxCte

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) April 27, 2025

 

At least 160 of the animals are reported to have drowned while others remained trapped aboard the boat. Media reports are saying the vessel capsized.

Animal rights activists are citing this as another example of why live export must be eliminated. Middle Eastern countries maintain the trade due to dietary laws and ritual slaughter. Countries such as Australia and New Zealand have moved to end live export in the face of pressure from activists. The shipping company Wellard, which was once the largest operator for live export vessels, reported at the start of 2025 that it had sold its last ship and closed its shipping operations. However, Argentina in February 2025 repealed a more than 50-year old ban saying it was to support free trade and to grow Argentina’s export industry and role in world trade.

 

AWO Recognizes Crowley Crew for Saving Four Men From Sinking Yacht

A survivor from the sunken yacht climbs a pilot ladder to board El Coqui (AMO / El Coqui crew)

Published Apr 24, 2025 10:53 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

The American Waterways Operators (AWO) has awarded its Honor & Excellence in Rescue Operations Awards to the crew of the El Coqui, one of the two con/ro ships that Crowley operates between Florida and Puerto Rico. 

In January, the crew of El Coqui rescued four survivors from a life raft north of the Dominican Republic. Yachtsmen David Potts, 63; John Potts, 62; Andrew Cullar, 26; and Russel Case, 67, were on a voyage from St. Croix to Texas when their sailing vessel struck an underwater rock and began taking on water. The yacht sank within 10 minutes, but the survivors managed to board their raft and get out an EPIRB distress signal. 

The Coast Guard received the alert and dispatched a search plane to look for survivors. Sector San Juan also sent an AMVER alert to nearby merchant ships, and El Coqui responded.

The ship arrived on scene shortly after, and the crew spotted the survivors. However, the raft was located in a rocky, shallow area, and El Coqui could not get closer than three nautical miles, according to an American Maritime Officers account. 

A small boat, the Bonanza, reached the raft and picked up the men. Despite challenging and rough surface conditions, the boat transferred them safely aboard El Coqui. They were delivered ashore at the con/ro's next port call in Jacksonville.

“They were exhausted both mentally and physically. We literally had to drag them up the ladder because they could barely make it,” Capt. Kurt Breitfeller told AMO. “You could tell they were mentally spent. They even said they couldn’t sleep because they kept having nightmares about what happened.”

AWO also recognized Second Mate Keven Zapolski of the Crowley-managed boxship Potomac Express, who helped rescue a crewmate who had gone over the side. The victim went into the water between the dock and the ship, and Zapolski quickly threw down a life ring. Terminal staff and first responders helped rescue the crewmember.

"We are proud of Second Mate Zapolski as well as Capt. Breitfeller and the mariners of El Coqui for their dedication and heroic actions to ensure the safety of others,” said Cal Hayden, vice president of marine operations for Crowley global ship management. “Their swift responses exemplify the essential commitment to safety that defines Crowley’s mariners and our operations, and we are honored to recognize their bravery."

 

Video: Severe Collision Sinks Bulker on Vietnam's Long Tau River

KMTC Surabaya (red) and Glengyle (yellow) were heading in opposite directions on the Long Xue River (Pole Star)

Published Apr 27, 2025 10:05 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

On Friday, a boxship and a bulker collided on Vietnam's Long Tau River, near Ho Chi Minh City, partially sinking the bulker. 

At about 2240 hours Friday night, boxship KMTC Surabaya collided with the bulker Glengyle at milepost 15 on the Long Tau. Surabaya's near-vertical plumb bow made contact with Glengyle's port side at an oblique angle, just forward of the bulker's deckhouse. It hit with enough force to peel back Glengyle's hull plating and penetrate deep into the bulker's after hold. 

The Surabaya's port bow came to rest against a cargo crane on Glengyle's centerline, just forward of the bridge deck. One of Glengyle's hatch covers was torn off its coaming by the force and appeared to be partially embedded in Surabaya's bow. 

Flooding from extreme damage, Glengyle partially sank and appeared to settle onto the shallow bottom of the river, exposing the scrapes on Surabaya's hull where the ships made contact. Fuel oil could be seen spilling from the bulker's tanks. As of Saturday, the two ships remained interlocked, with tugs on scene and monitoring.

Luckily, no casualties have been reported, and KMTC Surabaya's cargo is intact. 

It far from the first collision in which a vessel with a plumb bow penetrated and sank another ship. The most recent example may be the 2021 collision between the aluminum superyacht Utopia IV and the tanker Tropic Breeze in 2021: the yacht's axe-shaped, near-vertical plumb bow sank the steel-hulled tanker, but Utopia IV remained afloat and capable of navigation. 

 

Shadow Fleet Tanker Departs Estonia After Achieving Technical Compliance

Shadow tanker was permitted to depart after it achieved technical compliance (Estonia's Transport Administration)

Published Apr 28, 2025 12:19 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

Estonian officials confirmed on Saturday, April 26, that the shadow fleet tanker they had been detaining for two weeks had been released reporting the vessel was now technically in compliance. The Kiwala (115,577 dwt) was stopped on April 10 while it was transiting the Baltic and a standard Port State inspection raised concern about the legitimacy of its flag and insurance as well as multiple deficiencies.

The Estonia Transport Administration last week reported it was still waiting for confirmation that 40 deficiencies had been corrected. Its inspectors identified 29 issues that were grounds for detention. This included 23 issues related to documentation, in addition to issues with safety management aboard the tanker, crew preparedness for various shipboard emergencies, and unspecified technical issues. The vessel is also operating under sanctions from the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Switzerland.

The key question related to the vessel’s flag state. Estonia reported that the ship said it was registered in Djibouti, but records showed that the flag had been withdrawn at the start of the year. Estonia’s foreign ministry however reports it received information from Djibouti that it would accept the vessel until May 7. A confirmation letter was submitted to the Estonian Transportation Administration for what was called a “transitional period” with the documentation valid for another week and a half.

The tanker was re-inspected and the results of an audit of the vessel’s class society were checked. Estonia reports the technical issues had been corrected and so the detention order was lifted. The authorities said the vessel’s Chinese captain and international crew had cooperated. The Director of the Transport Administration told ERR News, “Technically, the ship is in order and it may depart.”

AIS signals show the Kiwala got back underway over the weekend and is arriving tomorrow, April 29, at the Russian port of Ust-Luga. The ship was traveling from Sikka, India, where it departed on March 11. Equasis shows the vessel managed from China but lists the Djibouti flag as false.

The vessel has been flag hopping and listed multiple managers over the past three years. There was no word of what flag it would be moving to in May.

“The whole incident confirms once again that there are significant deficiencies in the registers of the so-called flags of convenience countries and the data is not reliable and communication with them is problematic,” said Estonia’s Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna.

He declared that his country would continue to deter Russian shadow fleet vessels that are sailing under a flag of convenience. He said since June 2024 the country has stopped over 500 ships to request insurance documents while they are transiting the Baltic. He said they would continue to work with other Baltic countries to ensure the safety of shipping.

 

Two Caribbean Wrecks Identified as Danish Slave Ships

Courtesy Nationalmuseet

Published Apr 27, 2025 11:50 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

 

Archaeologists have confirmed the identity of two 18th-century shipwrecks in Costa Rica that for years were thought to be pirate ships. It has now been confirmed that the wrecks located in shallow waters off Cahuita National Park are those of Danish slave ships Fridericus Quartus and Christianus Quintus, which were shipwrecked off the coast of Central America in 1710.

The National Museum of Denmark is announcing that after analyzing samples taken from the shipwrecks, archaeologists have finally managed to resolve their mystery, bringing to an end years of speculation that they were pirate ships.

While the history of the two ships is well known and documented, their resting place had remained a mystery. Records show that in 1708, the two ships sailed from Copenhagen via West Africa towards Saint Thomas in the West Indies. Over several months of sailing along the coast of West Africa, the holds of the ships were filled with hundreds of slaves and made ready for the long voyage across the Atlantic.

In the spring of 1710, the two ships were in the Caribbean Sea. During the voyage across the Atlantic, however, they had gone off course, sailing nearly 2,000 kilometers further west than their intended destination, the Caribbean island colony of Saint Thomas in the Danish West Indies.

Sailing off course resulted in food and water rations running low, and a mutiny broke out among the crews of the two ships. The ensuing melee resulted in Fridericus Quartus being set on fire. Christianus Quintus had its anchor cable cut so the ship drifted towards the coast, where it was crushed in the waves in shallow water and also sank.  

The two wrecks were first discovered in the 1970s, although it was not until 2015 when U.S archaeologists discovered yellow bricks in one of the wrecks, igniting renewed interest in the history of the ships. In 2023, archaeologists from the National Museum of Denmark and the Viking Ship Museum carried out a diving mission to the two ships' resting place and took samples of wood and bricks that were part of the cargo. Several clay pipes were also found.

Detailed analysis of the samples has returned results that are consistent with Danish medieval history and accounts of the two ships. Analysis of the wood showed the timbers originated in the western part of the Baltic Sea, with the tree having been cut down sometime during the years 1690-1695. The wood was charred and sooty, confirming historical accounts about one of the ships being set ablaze.

The bricks bore remarkable similarities to those manufactured in Flensburg for use in Denmark and the Danish colonies in the 18th and 19th century. Analyses of the clay showed it came from parts of Denmark that were home to a sizable brick-producing industry. The clay pipes were identified as ordinary, Dutch-produced pipes that were also used onboard Danish ships.

“The analyses are very convincing and we no longer have any doubts that these are the wrecks of the two Danish slave ships. The bricks are Danish and the same goes for the timbers, which are additionally charred and sooty from a fire. This fits perfectly with the historical accounts stating that one of the ships burnt,” said David Gregory, National Museum marine archaeologist.

The project that led to the identification of the two shipwrecks, which was made possible through collaboration among several organizations, is part of a new mission by the National Museum to excavate several Danish shipwrecks abroad. The two ships are a reminder of Denmark’s involvement in the transatlantic slave trade, which the government banned in 1792 (although slavery was not abolished until half a century later in 1847).

 

Trump Demands Free Transits for U.S. Ships on Suez Canal

Supercarrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower during a Suez Canal transit (USN file image)

Published Apr 28, 2025 9:02 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

 

On Saturday, U.S. President Donald Trump called for the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal to provide no-cost transits for all U.S. naval and merchant vessels. The remarks on Panama reflect his previous statements, but this is the first time that Trump has made equivalent demands about access to the Suez Canal. 

In a social media post, Trump claimed that the French- and Egyptian-built Suez Canal "would not exist without the United States of America," and said that he has instructed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to "immediately take care of, and memorialize, this situation." The remarks drew outrage from Egypt's political class - but not its rulers, who have remained quiet. 

The Suez Canal was built by French diplomat Ferdinand de Lesseps' Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez during the period of the U.S. Civil War, supported by participation from international shareholders. The privately-funded work started in 1859, and it initially depended upon forced labor. Despite the warnings of naysayers, and a substantial number of casualties during construction, the canal opened in late 1869 and was an immediate commercial success. It passed into British hands in 1882, and British troops defended it from attack until Egypt nationalized it in 1956. Under the current Egyptian administration, it has been widened and expanded, with new parallel channels for two-way traffic. 

According to Al Jazeera, U.S. traffic accounts for about 10-20 percent of the volume on the Suez Canal, and generates fees of $400-700,000 per vessel traffic for the Egyptian government's Suez Canal Authority. Waiving these fees would be a significant blow to the SCA's already-reduced finances. 

Egyptian commentators have expressed surprise at Trump's demand, and have questioned whether the canal's existence depended on the U.S., given its French, British and Egyptian operating history. 

"[Egypt] refused the presence of any military bases from the Americans and before them the Russians," said Egyptian member of parliament Mahmoud Badr in a social media statement. "The Suez Canal was built by Egyptians with their blood, nationalized by Egyptians, and is protected by the Egyptian army."

Egypt's Civil Democratic Movement, which includes several of the country's political opposition parties, accused Trump of "a lack of historical awareness and unacceptable arrogance."

"The Egyptian people consider the Suez Canal a red line and will never accept any infringement on Egypt's sovereignty and national security," the group said in a statement. "They will follow in the footsteps of their fathers and grandfathers in defending their nation's freedom and territorial integrity."

Red Sea security

Over the course of the past year, the Suez Canal's traffic levels have fallen drastically due to the Houthi threat in the Red Sea. The militant group carried out more than 100 attacks and caused two sinkings off Yemen in 2024; merchant shipping is now taking a cautious approach to the Suez route, and traffic on the canal has fallen by 60 percent since 2023.

The Houthis' stated objective - a Gaza ceasefire - briefly occurred with U.S. support in January; Israel ended that ceasefire in March, and the U.S. has turned to an intensive campaign of airstrikes to suppress the Houthis' capacity to interfere with shipping. If successful, this campaign would benefit Egypt and the Suez Canal.

While the Houthis' operational tempo has fallen, the group still has the ability to launch drones and missiles - for now, focused on U.S. Navy and Israeli targets. Merchant shipping traffic levels remain low in the Red Sea, and most top shipping companies have said that they would wait until long after hostilities have ended before bringing their ships back to the area.