SHIPBREAKING AND THE BASEL CONVENTION

The report concludes that the Hong Kong Convention does not provide an equivalent level of control to the Basel Convention and therefore fails to ensure the environmentally sound management of shipbreaking. It argues that the Hong Kong Convention undermines key Basel protections through narrower scope, a weaker notification system that allows tacit consent, a lack of criminalization for illegal traffic, and the absence of a duty to re-import waste. Furthermore, the analysis finds that the Hong Kong Convention fails to sufficiently consider the interests of developing countries, where most shipbreaking occurs, by lacking funding mechanisms and mandatory minimum standards to phase out dangerous 'beaching' practices.

• The Hong Kong Convention is not equivalent to the Basel Convention because it excludes certain types of vessels, specifically warships, government non-commercial ships, and ships under 500 gross tons, whereas the Basel Convention does not exempt such waste.
• The control mechanism in the Hong Kong Convention is significantly weaker than the Basel Convention's Prior Informed Consent (PIC) system because it allows for the tacit approval of Ship Recycling Plans, whereas Basel requires explicit written consent.
• The Hong Kong Convention fails to provide an equivalent level of enforcement as it does not require the criminalization of illegal waste traffic, unlike the Basel Convention.
• A critical deficiency in the Hong Kong Convention is the absence of a 'duty to re-import' illegally transferred waste, a requirement that is essential under the Basel Convention to prevent ships from being abandoned in recycling states.
• The Hong Kong Convention does not sufficiently protect the interests of developing countries, as it lacks a dedicated funding mechanism to help facilities comply with standards and shifts the burden of environmentally sound management largely to the recycling state.
• The Hong Kong Convention fails to mandate minimum standards for the environmentally sound management (ESM) of shipbreaking, specifically failing to prohibit the 'beaching' method used in South Asia, which is identified as hazardous to human health and the environment.
• The Hong Kong Convention's jurisdiction is more limited than the Basel Convention's because it does not address the role of transit states that are not Parties to the Convention.

APA

Orellana, M. A., Azoulay, D., Heineken, H., & Corbetta, S. (2011). SHIPBREAKING AND THE BASEL CONVENTION. Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/Publications/Shipbreaking_22Apr11.pdf

Chicago

Orellana, Marcos A, David Azoulay, Hana Heineken, and Serena Corbetta. SHIPBREAKING AND THE BASEL CONVENTION. Center for International Environmental Law, 2011. https://www.ciel.org/Publications/Shipbreaking_22Apr11.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Orellana |first1=Marcos A |last2=Azoulay |first2=David |last3=Heineken |first3=Hana |last4=Corbetta |first4=Serena |title=SHIPBREAKING AND THE BASEL CONVENTION |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |date=April 2011 |url=https://www.ciel.org/Publications/Shipbreaking_22Apr11.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{orellana2011shipbreaking, author = {Orellana, Marcos A and Azoulay, David and Heineken, Hana and Corbetta, Serena}, title = {{SHIPBREAKING AND THE BASEL CONVENTION}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2011}, month = apr, url = {https://www.ciel.org/Publications/Shipbreaking_22Apr11.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }