But despite Djibouti’s claims, the seizure has been found to be illegal by UK courts. The High Court of England and Wales on 23 September upheld an injunction made on 31 August prohibiting the Government of Djibouti’s port company – Port de Djibouti S.A (PDSA) – from interfering with the joint venture it has in place with DP World. Notably, the ruling included the provision that PDSA “shall not act as if the joint venture agreement with DP World has been terminated”. PDSA failed to appear at its hearing on 14 September, despite being notified.

In an earlier statement, DP World said it will pursue all legal means to defend its rights, and that the Djibouti Government’s refusal to adhere to the decision of the London Court of International Arbitration – which provided the original judgement – demonstrates that Djibouti does not recognise the international rule of law.

It’s been hypothesised that the reason behind the port seizure is Djibouti’s significant public debt to China. According to US think tank the Center for Global Development, Djibouti’s debt is projected to soon reach 88% of its $1.72bn GDP and by the end of 2016, 82% of this debt was owned by China. It has been floated that the Government of Djibouti’s actions may be a veiled attempt at appeasing its East Asian creditor.

Adding to the controversy, in the original 2006 concession, Djibouti granted DP World exclusive rights over port and free zone facilities in the country, yet in 2013, 23.5% of PDSA was bought by Chinese state-owned corporation China Merchants Group. In recent years Djibouti has violated DP World’s exclusivity rights by partnering with China Merchants on construction and operation of a number of ports and free zones within the country.

In March, US Congressman Bradley Byrne, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, expressed concerns to the US Secretary of Defense James Mattis over the actions of Djibouti in relation to the Port of Doraleh, specifically over reports received by the US that Djibouti planned to gift the port to the Chinese Government in an arrangement that would echo Sri Lanka’s handover of Hambantota Port to China in 2017. 

As Djibouti is home to the only permanent US military base in the whole of Africa, this move would have significant ramifications for US military and intelligence operations in the region. Questioning General Thomas David Waldhauser, commander of the United States Africa Command, Byrne asked how valid the reports were, with Waldhauser assuring that Djibouti senior officials had stated that there was no intention to give control of the port to China and that instead control would be handed over to an external country in several months’ time. 

Exploring the hypothetical situation of a China-controlled Doraleh, Waldhauser admitted the potential situation would have significant consequences for the US. And of course the whole Doraleh situation raises questions over the security of the US’ investment in the region. What’s to stop the country pulling the same move on US contractual assets?

An August report from specialist intelligence company EXX Africa further darkens the shadow over Doraleh, suggesting the port may in future be leveraged as a processing centre for illegal arms. According to the company, several senior government officials had been implicated in the trade of illegal weapons, which means the now government-controlled port could soon become a hub for the arms trade.

EXX Africa clarifies that under DP World operation, Doraleh was not used for arms trafficking, but that local intelligence suggests that since the seizure, it is a significant possibility. The report reads that Djibouti has become an increasingly important hub for weapons shipments to armed groups in the Horn of Africa. Djibouti’s heightened trafficking role has occurred at a time when the country is seeking increased foreign investment in its maritime and port sectors. According to EXX Africa, many Djiboutian companies engaged in the sectors have in the past been implicated in the trade of illegal weapons.

For now, EXX Africa reports that the port’s status as one of Africa’s most important import-export hubs means international scrutiny is high, limiting illegal actions, and that much of the illegal arms trade is actually carried out via the country’s fishing communities. Nevertheless, the intelligence firm added that lax security and customs procedures in the Doraleh terminal facilitate illegal shipments that may well become a bigger problem in the future. The report suggests that the extent of corruption stretches all the way to the highest echelons of the Djibouti Government.

As for DP World, the company is seeking damages and at the time of writing a ruling is still being awaited. The company has said that despite the Djibouti troubles, its outlook is still positive and that its dealings in the country are just a small portion of its overall operations. The company is also looking into expansion into Eritrea as a potential competing destination for its Horn of Africa activities, sidestepping the Doraleh disruption.

However, the real issue is enforcing the rules. Complying with MARPOL effectively is dependent on good practices on board. Ship crews have to ensure, for example, that they don’t accidentally contaminate waste streams - i.e. chucking plastics in with verified garbage for disposal. 

Jeanne Grasso is vice chair of the Maritime & International Trade Practice Group and member of the maritime emergency response team at US law firm Blank Rome. She says that in every industry there are outliers, but rather than introducing new regulation, one answer is ensuring enforcement is stronger across the board. As an example, she points to the US Coast Guard, which closely monitors how many enforcement actions ships have had, prioritises enforcement accordingly and inspects ships at least once a year as policy. 

“I think we've got the waste streams covered pretty adequately,” says Grasso. “It's a matter of making sure these conventions and laws are complied with and enforced, and that responsibility is shared amongst the flag state, the port state and the shipping company itself, and in many cases local jurisdictions. 

“In my view, what companies can do is make sure that their crews are adequately trained, send a very strong compliance message to their ships, make sure the culture on that ship is a compliant culture, and have a good programme and policy for verification.”

Grasso says that having adequate waste reception facilities at ports is “critically important for the waste disposal issue” and something every ship-owner would support. However, a lack of standardised approach at ports has made this confusing.

In the EU, some port authorities are directly involved with waste management, while others have a set-up involving third party contractors, leading to variation in the way waste is handled.

Marc-Philip Buckhout, policy officer for environmental group Seas At Risk, says that historically, fee systems at ports have differed from country to country, making it less transparent for shippers and potentially incentivising ‘port hopping’ or illegal dumping to cut costs.  

“We've learned that in ports where authorities are involved in the handling of waste coming from ships, the waste is being treated better,” says Buckhout. “It’s also separated and the recycling rate is essentially higher. I think in other situations where it’s left to contractors or it’s directly left to the master of the ship to coordinate with a contractor to deal with the waste, there’s a risk of the waste not being treated correctly.”

The European Commission is currently discussing a revision to EU Directive 2000/59/EC, which governs port waste reception facilities across EU member states. The revision will introduce new measures to prevent illegal dumping of fishing gear and garbage at sea. However, its flagship measure is the introduction of a 100% indirect fee, which would restructure port fees to allow ships to deliver all of their waste to ports for a fixed fee –regardless of quantity. 

Buckhout says that Seas at Risk has welcomed stronger rules on fishers and the indirect fee, but is somewhat disappointed that some EU Members of Parliament introduced amendments that could weaken the universality of the fee (e.g. including language like “covering quantities normally delivered”, which leaves room for interpretation). 

“The argument we've heard often is the harbours would be overloaded with waste, which has not proven to be true in regions like the Baltic, where a 100% indirect fee is being implemented,” says Buckhout.

“We would’ve liked the 100% indirect fee to have been strengthened but having said that, we are very happy that the criteria that were set out through the MARPOL Convention could also be incorporated into EU law if it passes through the council in its current state, and I think that definitely will strengthen inspections and enforcement.”

Ultimately, when it comes to massive accumulations of waste in the seas, the priority needs to be stemming the source on land, particularly when it comes to nations with a less friendly environmental record. 

“The consensus here strongly is that this is a problem for land-based action on plastics and how it’s dealt with - primarily from a number of Asian countries, where the garbage literally floats down the river into the ocean,” says Joan Bondareff, another member of Blank Rome’s Maritime Group. 

Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean shipping companies can’t also play a more proactive role in raising awareness and implementing clean-up operations. In September 2018, Maersk sent an anchor handling tug supply vessel into the GPGP to deploy a 600m-long floating buoy with screens for collecting debris.

“It is rewarding to see that our marine capabilities can be utilised within new segments, and to support solving the important environmental problem with plastics in the oceans,” said Steen S. Karstensen, CEO of Maersk Supply Service, in a statement. 

Though high-scale waste dumping incidents have occurred in the past, there has been a growing public movement towards boosting the maritime sector’s green credentials.

“I think in every industry you have some bad actors,” says Grasso. “In my experience, the vast majority of ship-owners want to do the right thing.”