Enhancing the Regulatory Framework for Incineration at Sea in Peru: Implementing the 1996 London Protocol for Effective Maritime Environmental Governance

Abstract

Incineration at sea is a significant source of marine pollution, threatening biodiversity and public health. Although Peru ratified the 1996 London Protocol in 2018, key deficiencies persist in its domestic legal framework, particularly the absence of clear and internationally aligned definitions for “incineration” and “incinerator.” These gaps hinder effective enforcement by the National Maritime Authority (NMA-DICAPI) and limit regulatory compliance with international obligations. This study analyzes Peru’s current legislation in light of the London Protocol and includes a comparative overview of regional regulatory approaches in Latin America. Based on this analysis, the study identifies regulatory inconsistencies that compromise environmental protection and proposes three key legal reforms: (1) refining the definition of “incineration” to reflect international standards; (2) formally incorporating a definition for “incinerator”; and (3) establishing specific administrative and economic sanctions for related infractions. Through comparative analysis with Mexico and Colombia’s approaches, we propose targeted amendments including refined definitions aligned with IMO standards and explicit administrative/economic sanctions. Implementing these recommendations would enhance Peru’s legal clarity, enforcement capacity, and compliance with international maritime law, reinforcing its role as a responsible actor in marine environmental governance.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Marine pollution remains one of the most pressing environmental challenges globally, threatening marine biodiversity, ecosystems, and human health. Oceans, which cover more than two-thirds of the Earth’s surface, have increasingly become repositories of diverse waste materials, ranging from domestic and industrial waste to hazardous chemical substances. Among the various forms of marine pollution, dumping and incineration at sea have emerged as particularly concerning, due to their potential long-term detrimental effects on marine life and ecosystems, as well as the subsequent risks posed to human populations through the food chain and coastal activities.

Peru, strategically located along the western coast of South America with approximately 3080 km of Pacific coastline [1] (p. 45), exemplifies the critical intersection between intense maritime activity and environmental vulnerability. Its marine environment supports a vast array of economic activities, including industrial and artisanal fishing, extraction and transportation of hydrocarbons, and maritime trade through numerous ports and coastal installations. Such concentrated activities significantly elevate the potential for environmental degradation, especially near sensitive and ecologically vulnerable coastal zones, underscoring an urgent need for robust environmental protection measures.

Recognizing the severity of marine pollution from these activities, the international community has established two major legal frameworks under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) aimed at controlling and minimizing such practices: the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (London Convention) and the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (London Protocol) [2] (p. 4). The 1972 London Convention set initial international standards to regulate ocean dumping practices. However, evolving scientific understanding and environmental standards necessitated the establishment of a more stringent and comprehensive legal instrument. Consequently, the London Protocol was adopted in 1996, entering into force a decade later, in 2006. The Protocol not only updates, but also significantly strengthens the previous measures by implementing a precautionary approach and explicitly prohibiting incineration at sea and limiting permissible dumping substances. Currently, 55 states are parties to the Protocol, underscoring its global relevance and acceptance [3].

Acknowledging these environmental risks and the importance of international environmental governance, Peru ratified the 1996 London Protocol in 2018 [4]. This ratification marked Peru’s explicit commitment to aligning national standards with stringent international measures designed to safeguard marine ecosystems from harmful dumping and incineration activities. As articulated in Article 2 of the Protocol, member states, including Peru, are obligated to “protect and preserve the marine environment from all sources of pollution and take effective measures according to their scientific, technical, and economic capabilities to prevent, reduce, and where practicable, eliminate pollution caused by dumping or incineration at sea of wastes or other matter” [5] (p. 20).

Despite Peru’s ratification and its existing national legislative framework—specifically Legislative Decree No. 1147 [6] and its corresponding regulation, Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE [7]—critical regulatory deficiencies remain evident. One such deficiency is the vague and incomplete definition of “incineration at sea” within national legislation, which was recently incorporated into Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE, Article II “Glossary of Terms” [7] (p. 6), paragraph 162, as follows: “the process to neutralize the hazardous characteristics of the original waste and reduce its volume, which must include at minimum a primary chamber (between 650–850 °C), a secondary chamber (not less than 1200 °C), and a gas scrubbing and filtering system.”

This definition does not fully reflect international standards set by the London Protocol, creating potential regulatory ambiguity and enforcement gaps. In addition, there are no specific national regulations governing incinerators—the specialized equipment designed for maritime incineration—as established, for example, in Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) [8], Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships, or in IMO Resolution MEPC.244(66) [9], further complicating effective regulatory oversight.

1.2. Research Need

These gaps and ambiguities present tangible risks for Peru’s compliance with international obligations under the London Protocol. They could potentially lead to unauthorized incineration practices, inadequate monitoring of maritime activities, and ineffective enforcement, significantly undermining Peru’s ability to manage and mitigate marine pollution effectively. Such inadequacies in regulation not only compromise the integrity of marine ecosystems, but also pose direct threats to human populations reliant on marine resources for livelihoods, food security, and recreational activities.

In response to these challenges, this research aims to consider that, to the present date, there have been no officially reported cases of waste incineration at sea or associated violations in Peruvian waters. This is likely due to the fact that at-sea incineration is an internationally prohibited practice, and no clear instances of unauthorized incineration at sea in Peru have been detected, prosecuted, or linked to documented environmental damage. This indicates that empirical evidence specifically related to at-sea incineration remains limited, at present.

The absence of probative documentation related to marine incineration should not be interpreted as evidence that such problems have not occurred or will not occur. In other words, the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. Rather, it may reflect limitations in the current regulatory framework, specifically the lack of precise definitions, insufficient enforcement mechanisms, and constraints in the capacity to monitor, report, investigate, and sanction such cases. If the legal definition of “incineration at sea” remains vague or ambiguous, authorities may be unable to correctly identify and classify violations involving unauthorized burning. Moreover, in the absence of clearly defined sanctions, regulatory agencies may lack both the authority and the incentive to allocate resources toward investigating such activities, unless the resulting harm is severe or conspicuous.

For instance, an action occurring in Peruvian waters that does not align with the definition of incineration as stipulated in the London Protocol might be misidentified as incineration, leading to regulation inconsistent with international norms. Conversely, an action that conforms to the London Protocol’s definition of incineration might escape regulation if it is not understood as incineration. While the likelihood may not be high, the London Protocol defines incineration as an action with “deliberate disposal” and excludes actions occurring during “normal operation”. Therefore, actions that either fall within or outside this definition could occur in Peruvian waters. If actions are regulated differently from international norms, or not regulated at all, it could lead to unnecessary expenditure of Peru’s administrative resources, cause economic losses, and even result in unintended pollution in Peruvian waters. Consequently, to prevent such losses and damages, a clear definition of incineration is necessary, and this study was conducted with the aim of proposing legal amendments to achieve this.

In addition, the London Protocol framework sets forth several core principles for the protection of the marine environment. Among these, the most important is the precautionary approach, which holds that preventive measures should be taken in advance when there is a possibility of environmental harm, even in the absence of definitive scientific evidence. International environmental law also emphasizes the need to prevent risks through preemptive legislative reform [10]. The London Protocol explicitly requires parties to implement its provisions through revisions to domestic legislation, which can be understood as an extension of the precautionary principle.

In this context, Peru’s initiative to review and revise its domestic legislation in the absence of any major accident can be regarded as an example of the type of preemptive regulatory reform encouraged by the international community. Such efforts lay the legal foundation for preventing future harm and contribute to enhancing the credibility and effectiveness of marine environmental governance. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has likewise emphasized that “to prevent marine pollution, full implementation of the London Protocol is essential, including the establishment of national systems for assessment, permitting, monitoring, and enforcement,” thereby indicating that proactive improvement of domestic legislation constitutes a fundamental starting point for meeting international obligations and safeguarding the marine environment [11].

For this reason, this study adopts a preventive approach, prioritizing the need to address such deficiencies before they result in future environmental damage, international non-compliance, or domestic legal issues. The objectives of this study are to provide a comprehensive analysis of Peru’s existing legal framework concerning the implementation of the London Protocol, particularly addressing deficiencies in the definitions and regulatory structures surrounding incineration at sea. By critically evaluating the current framework, identifying specific weaknesses, and proposing targeted regulatory amendments, this study seeks to enhance Peru’s legal compliance and administrative efficiency in managing marine pollution.

2. Peruvian Legal Framework Related to the London Protocol

In 2017, in order to ratify the London Convention, the Peruvian state gathered the different ministries involved in the application of the Protocol [12] (

Table 1. Outcome of the study on the approval and implementation of the London Protocol.

Ministry	Opinion	Institution Responsible
Ministry of Foreign Affairs	Approval
Ministry of Defense	Approval
Ministry of Production	Approval
Ministry of Transportation and Communications	Approval	DICAPI is the institution entrusted with the implementation and enforcement of the London Protocol, possessing the requisite resources and infrastructure (institutional, regulatory, and physical) at the national level. It undertakes and fulfills the commitments outlined in Legislative Decree 1147 and Supreme Decree 015-2014-DE, without prejudice to the competencies of other sectors.
Ministry of Environment	Approval
Ministry of Energy and Mines	Approval
Ministry of Health	Approval

).

This allows us to present the framework background, to clarify the applicable laws and how the Peruvian state manages the protocol.

Table 2. Peruvian Legal Framework related to the London Protocol.

Legal Framework	Date of Promulgation
Political Constitution of Peru [13].	29 December 1993
Law No. 28611, ‘General Law of the Environment’ [14].	15 October 2005
Law No. 26842, ‘General Law of Health’ [15].	15 July 1997
Law No. 29338, ‘Water Resources Law’ [16].	31 March 2009
Law No. 27314, ‘General Law of Solid Wastes’ [17].	Derogated
Legislative Decree No. 1278 ‘Integral Solid Waste Management Law’ [18].	22 December 2016
Supreme Decree No. 014-2017-MINAM, ‘Supreme Decree that approves the Regulation of Legislative Decree 1278′ [19].	21 December 2017
Law No. 26834, ‘Law of Protected Natural Areas’ [20].	30 June 1997
Legislative Decree No. 1138, ‘Law of the Peruvian Navy’ [21].	10 December 2012
Legislative Decree No. 1147, ‘Legislative Decree regulating the strengthening of the Armed Forces in the competences of the National Maritime Authority-General Directorate of Captaincies and Coastguard’.	11 December 2012
Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE, ‘Supreme Decree that approves the Regulation of Legislative Decree 1147′.	28 November 2014
Supreme Decree No. 001-2024-DE update for Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE [22].	24 January 2024
Legislative Resolution No. 30766, ‘Approval of the 1996 London Protocol’ [23].	15 May 2018
Supreme Decree No. 022-2018-RE, ‘Ratification of the 1996 London Protocol’.	17 June 2018

also include laws that are implicated in the maritime frame.

With the ratification of the London Protocol by the Peruvian State, Peru also waives the right recognized in paragraph 2 of Article 8 with respect to the issuance of emergencies permits, as an exception to the provisions of Articles 4.1 “Contracting Parties shall prohibit the dumping of any wastes or other matter with the exception of those listed in annex 1” and Article 5 “Contracting Parties shall prohibit incineration at sea of wastes or other matter”.

Also, regarding the permitted substances mentioned in the London Protocol Annex 1, Peru does not authorize the dumping of the following wastes or other materials:

• Sewage sludge (Annex 1 of the Protocol Item 1.2).
• Fish waste or materials resulting from the processing of fish (Annex 1 of the Protocol Item 1.3).
• Carbon dioxide streams resulting from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration (Protocol Annex 1 Item 1.8).

The reason why the Peruvian state excludes these items from the list of permissible wastes is that items 1.2 and 1.3 are not in accordance with national regulations and are classified as hazardous wastes, as established in Law No. 27314 ‘General Law of Solid Wastes’, which indicates in Chapter II, Article 22: ‘Hazardous solid wastes are those that due to their characteristics represent a significant risk to health or the environment and are also considered hazardous if they present at least one of the following characteristics: self-combustibility, explosiveness, corrosiveness, reactivity, toxicity, radioactivity, or pathogenicity’ [12] (p. 11).

However, Law No. 27314 ‘General Law of Solid Wastes’ has been repealed and updated by Legislative Decree No. 1278 ‘Integral Solid Waste Management Law’, which indicates in Annex 1, ‘Definitions’, that ‘hazardous waste is waste that, due to its characteristics or the handling to which it is or will be subjected, represents a significant risk to health or the environment’.

Item 1.8 was excluded because there are no national regulations that regulate this method, and there is insufficient scientific evidence to confirm the impact on the environment [12] (p. 11). Such domestic legal restrictions are likewise reflected in the actual permitting records (Table 3).

It is important to mention that by resolution LP.6 (17)−IMO [24] (p. 69), item 1.2 of Annex 1 of the London Protocol was withdrawn from the list of permissible wastes because there is sufficient evidence to justify the adoption of the proposed amendment. However, this amendment was not adopted until 7 October 2022.

Table 3. Peruvian report to IMO on dumping permits issued.

Document	Date	Issued in	Type of Waste	Permits	Total	Quantity Licensed (Tons)
LC 33/INF.3 [25]	18 July 2011	2008	Dredge material	1	2	1,950,000
			Fish wastes	1		220
LC 34/INF.3 [26]	25 October 2012	2009	Dredge material	1	2	1,950,000
			Drilling sludge	1		14,400
LC 35/6 [27]	9 August 2013	2010	Drilling sludge	1	1	14,400
LC 39/7 [28]	4 August 2017	2014	Dredge material	2	2	1,334,197
LC 40/7 [29]	2 August 2018	2015	Dredge material	3	3	1,935,263
LC 41/7 [30]	5 July 2019	2016	Dredge material	3	3	2,264,939
LC 42/7/1 [31]	5 October 2020	2017	Dredge material	3	3	2,264,940
LC 43/7 [32]	23 July 2021	2018	Dredge material	3	3	37,674,190
LC 44/7 [33]	29 July 2022	2019	Dredge material	2	2	3,021,945
LC 45/7 [34]	28 July 2023	2020	Dredge material	3	3	5,166,945
LC 45/7/1 [35]	28 July 2023	2021	Dredge material	4	4	NO INFO

Table 3. Peruvian report to IMO on dumping permits issued.

Document	Date	Issued in	Type of Waste	Permits	Total	Quantity Licensed (Tons)
LC 33/INF.3 [25]	18 July 2011	2008	Dredge material	1	2	1,950,000
			Fish wastes	1		220
LC 34/INF.3 [26]	25 October 2012	2009	Dredge material	1	2	1,950,000
			Drilling sludge	1		14,400
LC 35/6 [27]	9 August 2013	2010	Drilling sludge	1	1	14,400
LC 39/7 [28]	4 August 2017	2014	Dredge material	2	2	1,334,197
LC 40/7 [29]	2 August 2018	2015	Dredge material	3	3	1,935,263
LC 41/7 [30]	5 July 2019	2016	Dredge material	3	3	2,264,939
LC 42/7/1 [31]	5 October 2020	2017	Dredge material	3	3	2,264,940
LC 43/7 [32]	23 July 2021	2018	Dredge material	3	3	37,674,190
LC 44/7 [33]	29 July 2022	2019	Dredge material	2	2	3,021,945
LC 45/7 [34]	28 July 2023	2020	Dredge material	3	3	5,166,945
LC 45/7/1 [35]	28 July 2023	2021	Dredge material	4	4	NO INFO

3. Incineration

3.1. Definition and Scope of Incineration

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notes in its ‘Inventory of Sources and Environmental Releases of Dioxin-Like Compounds in the U.S.’ that various sources and environmental discharges of dioxin-like compounds exist. The primary identified sources of these releases fall into six broad categories: combustion sources, metals smelting, refining and processing sources, chemical manufacturing sources, natural sources, and environmental reservoirs. Because of their hydrophobic properties and resistance to metabolism, these chemicals persist and accumulate in the fatty tissues of animals and humans. As a result, the main route of chronic exposure for the population is through the consumption of animal fats, fish, shellfish, and related products in their diet. Additionally, these compounds are persistent in soils and sediments, with environmental half-lives ranging from several years to decades [36] (pp. 2–34).

In this context, incineration is considered a combustion source because dioxin-like compounds are formed in most thermal combustion systems, including those that burn wastes such as municipal solid waste, sewage sludge, medical waste, and hazardous waste. Dioxin-like compounds are also produced in other high-temperature sources, poorly controlled or uncontrolled combustion sources (such as open burning of wastes), and during the burning of various fuels (such as coal, wood, and petroleum products). These activities, not specifically regulated by the NMA-DICAPI, can be found along the Peruvian coast, such as beaches and ports, and in different environments like rivers and lakes, which represent a serious problem for the population and the environment in Peru.

In this regard, it is also relevant to mention anionic surfactants, which are the most commonly used class of surfactants in cleansing applications. These compounds, in addition to their ability to emulsify oily soils into wash solutions, can remove dirt and particulates from surfaces, due to their hydrophobic properties [37] (p. 91). In particular, alkylbenzene sulphonates—specifically the subclass of Linear Alkylbenzene Sulphonates (LASs)—are of special interest because of their behavior under combustion. A thermal decomposition study of LASs showed that heating at 250 °C generates a gaseous stream containing sulfur dioxide (SO₂), sulfur trioxide (SO₃), and sulfuric acid (H₂SO₄) [38] (p. 8415). This finding suggests that the incineration of LASs at sea could result in the release of corrosive acidic emissions [39] (p. 111), highlighting the need to prevent the emission of such pollutants.

The London Protocol also contemplates as an objective the ‘incineration at sea’, as stated in Article 5 “Contracting Parties shall prohibit incineration at sea of wastes or other matter”, defined by the IMO as ‘combustion on board a vessel, platform or other man-made structure at sea of wastes or other matter for their purpose of their deliberate disposal by thermal destruction’ [3] (p. 20). This international definition explicitly includes the intentional aspect of disposal by thermal destruction, distinguishing it from incidental or operational burning of materials onboard vessels. This distinction is crucial for regulatory clarity and enforcement effectiveness. This paper aims to provide evidence and suggest the modification of the actual Peruvian legal framework to modify or update the concept of ‘incineration’, in order to perfect the implementation of the London Protocol in Peru in benefit of the maritime environment and, consequently, the population.

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex VI ‘Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships,’ Rule 2, paragraph 1, clause 26, defines ONBOARD INCINERATION as ‘the incineration of waste or other matter on board a ship if such waste or other matter has been produced during the normal operation of the ship’. Likewise, it defines, in clause 27, ONBOARD INCINERATOR, as ‘the installation designed primarily for onboard incineration’ [8] (p. 274).

It should be noted that Rule 16.2 of Annex VI prohibits the incineration of a certain list of materials, which are also complementary to the rules of Annex V ‘Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships’ [8] (p. 299).

In addition, with resolution MEPC.244(66) [9] adopted on 4 April 2014, the ‘2014 Standard Specification for Shipboard Incinerators’ were established, where specifications for incineration equipment can be found, as well as other provisions related to this type of operation. These specifications include detailed requirements on incinerator construction, operational parameters (e.g., temperature ranges, combustion chamber characteristics), emissions monitoring, and waste types suitable for incineration, thereby ensuring effective pollution control and minimizing harmful emissions such as dioxins and other persistent organic pollutants (POPs).

Improving Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE in relation to the London protocol is crucial for protecting people and the environment and providing the NMA-DICAPI officials with the tools they need to fulfil their responsibilities correctly. Additionally, it is important to enhance Peru’s image as a maritime nation and an active member of the IMO. To achieve this, the definition of ‘incineration’ within the Peruvian regulatory framework must explicitly reflect the international standard set by the London Protocol and MARPOL, clearly indicating the deliberate intent and spatial scope (maritime and coastal environments) of the activity. Moreover, incorporating a precise definition for ‘incinerator’ into national legislation is essential. This definition should align with the IMO standard, specifying that such equipment is explicitly designed and certified primarily for onboard waste incineration, thereby eliminating regulatory ambiguities and facilitating effective oversight and enforcement by the NMA-DICAPI.

3.2. Issue Identification in the NMA-DICAPI’s Legal Framework

With Supreme Decree No. 001-2024-DE, dated 24 January 2024, the Peruvian State updated Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE by adding a definition of INCINERATION as the following: ‘It is the process to nullify the hazardous characteristics of the original waste and reduce its volume; for which a minimum of a primary chamber (between 650–850 °C), a secondary chamber (not less than 1200 °C), and a gas washing and filtering system must be available’ [22] (p. 23). It is important to note that this definition was directly extracted from Supreme Decree No. 014-2017-MINAM, ‘Supreme Decree that approves the Regulation of Legislative Decree 1278,’ where the same definition is established in Article 62 Chapter II, ‘OPERATIONS AND PROCESSES OF NON-MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT’ [19] (p. 10).

Legislative Decree 1278 focuses its application on the national territory based on the activities carried out on land, a fact highlighted by the same law when establishing in Article 4, ‘scope of application’, subparagraph ‘d’, the following: ‘Without prejudice to the current special regulation, to oily waste and mixtures generated in activities carried out in the aquatic environment, vessels, naval artifacts, aquatic installations, and boats in general’ [18] (p. 2). This clearly indicates that Legislative Decree 1278 does not explicitly cover maritime or aquatic incineration practices, emphasizing a regulatory gap when the same terrestrial definition is directly applied to maritime operations under DICAPI’s jurisdiction.

In the opinion of Dimitrijevich, the Principle of Legality is the most important principle within the scope of Administrative Law [40] (p. 261), in relation to what is stated in Law 27,444, ‘General Administrative Procedure Law’, in article IV [41] (p. 7):

Principle of Legality—Administrative authorities must act with respect to the Constitution, the law, and the right, within the faculties that are attributed to them and according to the purposes for which they were conferred.

In this sense, the Political Constitution of Peru in article 2° paragraph 24.a. establishes that ‘Nobody is obliged to do what the law does not order, nor prevented from doing what it does not prohibit’ [13].

Regarding this, Torres, H. and Cruz, D., mention that, according to this principle, no one can be punished for an act that was not previously and expressly considered a crime and without the proper provision of a penalty [42] (p. 178).

Similarly, Veloso [43] (p. 72) mentions that the Principle of Typicity is closely related to the Principle of Legality, defending Typicity as the need for any illicit or punishable conduct to be correctly stated in a norm prior to the occurrence of the infraction, and that it also provides for the corresponding penalty.

Veloso cited Ramirez [43] (p. 70), where he points out that the Principle of Typicity responds to three elements, which are the following:

Lex scripta: a norm that foresees the infraction and sanction of the action.

Lex praevia: the need for the law to be prior to the moment of the infraction.

Lex certa: the requirement that the law be precise and consistent with punishable conduct, as well as with the sanction.

Therefore, Veloso [43] (p. 73) ensures that the Principle of Legality would be violated when imposing a sanction that does not have a legal basis, as well as the intention to apply a sanction that is not provided at the time of the infraction; similarly, the Principle of Typicity would be violated if the infraction or sanction is not properly described in the norm in a way that allows for the warning of possible punishable conduct.

In Peru, the General Directorate of Captaincies and Coast Guard is the entity in charge of preventing, combating, and protecting the aquatic environment, as well as sanctioning infractions committed within the scope of its competence; all this is in relation to its functions as the National Maritime Authority, established in article 5 of Legislative Decree No. 1147.

According to the functions of Peru’s NMA-DICAPI, established in Article 5 of Legislative Decree No. 1147, paragraph 18 mentions the authority to sanction infractions committed within its scope of competence. Likewise, Article 19, paragraph 1, numeral 2 establishes that the NMA-DICAPI may exercise sanctioning authority for infractions that affect the prevention and protection of the aquatic environment.

Similarly, Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE establishes, in Annex 1, the ‘Table of Infractions and Sanctions’ where Section C ‘Infractions and sanctions related to the protection of the aquatic environment’ is found, in which infractions and the corresponding sanction are typified according to the classification criteria of the evaluating authority.

However, this table currently lacks specific references to infractions related explicitly to unauthorized incineration or the improper use of incinerators, creating potential enforcement gaps and ambiguity regarding sanctions applicable to such environmental violations (

Table 4. Infractions and Sanctions related to the London Protocol.

Article	Infractions	Minor	Serious	Very Serious
		Admonition or Suspension from 1 to 30 Days	Suspension from 31 to 90 Days	Suspension from 91 to 180 Days or Cancellation
		Fine from 0.05 up to 2 UIT	Fine Greater than 2 up to 20 UIT	Fine Greater than 20 up to 1000 UIT.
273 273.1	Unauthorized discharges or dumping Making the discharge or dumping of hydrocarbons/bulk liquid harmful substances/waste/debris, garbage, or waste into the aquatic environment, originating from ships, naval artifacts, and/or aquatic facilities, whether connected or linked to such waters, or from land facilities or vehicles, regardless of their cause.	* In the case of hydrocarbon dumping/discharge/spill a penalty scale is applied based on the number of barrels released. The scale begins with spills of up to 2 barrels, which are subject to minor sanctions ranging from an admonition to a fine between 0.5 and 2 UIT. However, when the amount exceeds 3000 barrels, the offense is considered very serious, and the fine is set at 1000.1 UIT, plus 0.15 UIT for each additional barrel.

).

According to the Peruvian Ministry of Economy and Finance, the Tax Unit (UIT) is the value in Peruvian ‘Sol’ or ‘S/’ (PEN) (official currency of Peru) established by the State to determine taxes, fines, penalties, and other tax-related aspects.

It is worth noting that the value of the UIT varies annually, in effect from January 1 to December 31 of each year, with the current value (2025) being PEN 5.350 (approximately USD 1439) [44].

It is important to mention that Article 783 of Supreme Decree 015-2014-DE defines the following:

(1)

Admonition: Written warning or reprimand.

(2)

Fine: Monetary penalty whose amount is established based on the value of the current UIT and within the scales established in the table of infractions and penalties of the Regulation, between 0.05 to 1000, with the exception of item 273.1 of said table, which depends on the quantity of spilled contaminant.

(3)

Suspension: Temporary loss of rights, licenses, titles, permits, authorizations, among others, granted by the National Maritime Authority, imposed by corresponding resolution for a period of one to one hundred eighty calendar days, depending on the severity of the infraction.

(4)

Cancellation: Loss of rights, licenses, titles, permits, authorizations, among others, granted by the National Maritime Authority, imposed by corresponding resolution.

To conclude this section, we can summarize that, with respect to the administrative framework regarding incineration, the following important points were identified:

(1)

The definition of the term ‘incineration’ in Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE [8] is the same as in Supreme Decree No. 014-2017-MINAM. This could lead to poor practices when applying the regulation to the public, due to the lack of specific concepts in relation with the scope of application of the Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE. Specifically, the existing definition describes incineration merely as a process rather than clearly defining it as an intentional action, including precise details about its maritime application (e.g., onboard ships or offshore structures).

(2)

The Peruvian regulations do not include a definition for ‘incinerator,’ which could result in a legal gap when an infraction occurs. This absence prevents clear identification and regulation of equipment specifically designed or certified for maritime incineration, thereby weakening regulatory oversight capabilities.

(3)

Economic sanctions for infractions related to the concepts of ‘incineration’ and ‘incinerator’ are not considered in Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE. Introducing clear economic penalties explicitly associated with unauthorized maritime incineration and the improper use of incinerators would significantly strengthen the enforcement framework, aligning it with international regulatory standards and ensuring greater environmental protection.

4. Discussion

4.1. Foundational Principles for Regulatory Enhancement

Effective maritime governance operates within a complex, multi-layered regulatory system comprising international conventions, flag State laws, and port State control measures. For this system to function, each layer must be robust and coherent. International conventions like the London Protocol and MARPOL set global standards, but their efficacy depends entirely on their transposition into, and enforcement through, national legislation. The characteristics of sound maritime regulation—consistency, accountability, and clarity—are therefore paramount at the domestic level.

To ensure adequate alignment of domestic regulations with international standards and to improve the applicability of environmental regulations in the maritime domain for the benefit of the population, the environment, and the competent authority, it is necessary to expand the discussion beyond merely identifying gaps or inconsistencies in the Peruvian legal framework. A multidimensional approach is required to understand the practical implications of the proposed amendments. This section deepens the analysis by examining the legal foundations of the proposed modifications, their operational feasibility within the Peruvian maritime context, and the institutional dynamics that influence both their implementation as normative proposals and their subsequent enforcement. Additionally, examples from Latin American countries are presented, to identify best practices and regional trends in the regulation of sea incineration activities.

Furthermore, it is important to highlight that, pursuant to the principle of continuous improvement established in Article 76 of the General Environmental Law [14] (p. 25), the State and its entities are required to promote the enhancement of environmental performance levels. Likewise, Article VI [14] (p. 2) defines the principle of prevention, under which environmental management prioritizes the prevention, monitoring, and avoidance of environmental degradation. These principles are directly related to the principles of effectiveness, reasonableness, and legality as established in the General Administrative Procedure Law [41] (pp. 7–8), and they support the preventive approach adopted in this research.

4.2. Proposed Amendments to the Peruvian Regulatory Framework

Based on the identified deficiencies, three targeted amendments to Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE are proposed to create a robust and enforceable framework.

(1)

It is necessary to modify or update the definition of the term ‘incineration’ within the Peruvian legal framework, aiming to align it with the standards established by the London Protocol and other international regulations provided by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), fully taking into account national regulations. Based on Article 5 of the London Protocol and Article 1, paragraph 5.1, which defines “incineration at sea” as deliberate disposal by thermal destruction, an exemplary definition is proposed as follows:

“Combustion on board ships, naval craft, installations, or any other man-made structure of wastes or other matter in the aquatic environment and coastal areas for the purpose of their deliberate disposal by thermal destruction.”

It is particularly noteworthy that this definition explicitly mentions the ‘aquatic environment and coastal areas’. This comprehensive jurisdictional scope reflects the authority of the NMA-DICAPI, which covers not only maritime domains, but also inland waters, navigable rivers, and lakes. Such inclusive jurisdictional coverage is essential to maintain coherence between international conventions ratified by Peru and its domestic legal context. Moreover, the proposed definition clearly emphasizes the “deliberate disposal purpose” of incineration as highlighted by the London Protocol, distinguishing it explicitly from incidental combustion activities that may occur during the routine operation of vessels or marine structures, thus significantly enhancing regulatory effectiveness.

Furthermore, the current definition of incineration as incorporated within Peru’s national legislation was originally derived from terrestrial waste management contexts. When applied directly to maritime incineration without adjustments, this definition lacks specificity concerning the intentionality of the disposal purpose and spatial applicability, thereby potentially undermining regulatory clarity and compliance with the principle of legality. Therefore, adopting the revised definition as proposed above, clearly aligned with the London Protocol and IMO regulations, would substantially improve the practical applicability of the regulation for the responsible authorities.

(2)

In addition to defining ‘incineration’, it is crucial to establish a clear and explicit definition for the term ‘incinerator’. This is essential to prevent potential malpractices by regulated entities and to ensure conformity with international standards. Drawing from MARPOL Annex VI, Rule 2, paragraph 1, clause 27 and IMO Resolution MEPC.244(66), it would be advisable to adopt the following definition, taking into account the established definition from the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships [34]:

“Shipboard facility designed for the primary purpose of incineration.”

This definition explicitly highlights the equipment’s intended primary purpose, rather than merely its presence, thus avoiding confusion with general waste treatment facilities. Incorporating detailed criteria regarding the design and certification of onboard incinerators would prevent unauthorized usage and effectively mitigate associated environmental risks. Furthermore, legally integrating international standards outlined in IMO’s ‘2014 Standard Specification for Shipboard Incinerators’ MEPC.244(66) would ensure rigorous control and supervision over maritime incineration facilities. As a result, this would strengthen the NMA-DICAPI’s supervisory and regulatory enforcement capacity, significantly enhancing consistency with international norms.

(3)

Regarding infractions and sanctions, it is essential to include specific provisions clearly reflecting the definitions proposed above (points 1 and 2) in Annex 1, Section C, “Infractions and sanctions related to the protection of the aquatic environment” of Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE. This inclusion will reinforce the legal binding force of the provisions and establish a concrete legal foundation for implementing effective penalties in cases of non-compliance. The following

Table 5. Inclusion of terms and definitions.

Infractions	Minor	Serious	Very Serious
	Admonition or Suspension from 1 to 30 Days	Suspension from 31 to 90 Days	Suspension from 91 to 180 Days or Cancellation
	Fine from 0.05 up to 2 UIT	Fine Greater than 2 up to 20 UIT	Fine Greater than 20 up to 1000 UIT.
Unauthorized incineration Incineration of unauthorized waste or other matter originating from ships, naval craft, installations, or any other man-made structure, contravening the regulations set by the National Maritime Authority.	X
Incinerator To make use of equipment or methods not authorized by the National Maritime Authority for the purpose of carrying out the incineration of waste or other matter.	X

presents the proposed amendments:

The proposed infraction “Unauthorized incineration” is based on the aforementioned Article 5, “Incineration at Sea,” of the London Protocol, which establishes that the Contracting Parties shall prohibit the incineration at sea of wastes or other matter. In addition, Article 1, “Definitions,” paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2, have been taken into account. Paragraph 5.1 defines the term “incineration at sea,” while paragraph 5.2 clarifies that this term does not include wastes or other matter generated during the normal operation of a vessel, platform, or other man-made structure at sea. The inclusion of this infraction in the Annex 1, Section C, “Infractions and sanctions related to the protection of the aquatic environment” of Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE reinforces the recent incorporation of the definition of the term “INCINERATION” into Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE, whether in its current version (considered inaccurate by the author) or in the revised version proposed in paragraph (1) of the present section.

Likewise, the proposed infraction “INCINERATOR” responds to the need to introduce a sanctionable offense based on the inclusion of this term, as proposed in paragraph (2) of the present section, and in relation to both the current and proposed definitions of the term “INCINERATION”. It is important to note that recreational activities, such as traditional bonfires or similar practices carried out on coastal areas, in accordance with Article III of Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE, are subject to evaluation by the officer of the NMA-DICAPI. The officer must apply the criteria established in Article 755 [7] (p. 97), which include the presence or absence of intent, severity, recidivism, repetition of offenses, concurrence of infractions, the harm caused, the circumstances under which the infraction was committed, and whether the violation is ongoing.

The suggested regulations in Table 5 categorize infractions clearly into “serious” and “very serious” types, reflecting explicitly the gravity and environmental impact of the infractions. Combining administrative sanctions (e.g., admonition, suspension, or cancellation of permits) with economic penalties (up to 1000 UIT) provides strong incentives for compliance and ensures effective environmental protection measures.

Such detailed and explicit sanction mechanisms align with Peru’s commitments to comply with international standards and improve regulatory effectiveness in accordance with the IMO’s requirements and global environmental protection criteria. Furthermore, enhanced clarity in regulations would significantly reduce legal uncertainty and unnecessary disputes related to the exercise of administrative sanctioning authority by the NMA-DICAPI. Consequently, these improvements are expected to substantially contribute to Peru’s proactive participation in international environmental protection efforts, establishing a more effective regulatory framework for maritime and aquatic environmental protection.

It is worth noting that the proposed inclusion of specific sanctions in Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE is fully supported by Article 19 of Legislative Decree No. 1147 [6] (p. 7). This article grants the NMA-DICAPI the power to impose sanctions for actions or omissions that violate this legislative decree, its regulations, or related provisions, especially when such violations affect the prevention and protection of the aquatic environment.

4.3. Latin American Approaches to Regulating Incineration at Sea

4.3.1. Mexico

The Mexican case represents a strong regional example of good practices related to incineration at sea. As a Contracting Party to the London Protocol, Mexico has adopted the “Law on Dumping in Mexican Marine Zones” [45], which begins, in Article 1 [45] (p. 1), by defining its scope of application. It states that the law is of public order and is intended to control and prevent the pollution or alteration of the sea.

Subsequently, Article 2 [45] (p. 1) defines the term incineration as “the thermal destruction of waste or other matter on board a ship, platform, or other construction at sea for the purpose of deliberate disposal within Mexican marine zones,” which clearly aligns with the definition provided in the London Protocol. Furthermore, Article 4 [45] (p. 2) establishes that “the incineration of waste or other matter in Mexican marine zones is prohibited. Likewise, the import and export of waste or other matter for the purpose of dumping or incineration is prohibited, and any violation shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of this Law.”

This example from a Contracting Party to the London Protocol demonstrates a clear and effective approach to the regulation of marine incineration. It provides a useful precedent for the coherent application of environmental legislation in terms of control, prevention, definition, prohibition, and sanction, in cases of non-compliance.

4.3.2. Colombia

The Colombian case, as a country that is not a Contracting Party to the London Protocol, offers an interesting regional perspective and approaches this issue through the MARPOL Convention [8], specifically Annex V, “Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships,” as well as multiple IMO resolutions. The Colombian Maritime Authority (CMA) has issued Resolution Number 0416-2020 (MD-DIMAR-ASEGMAR) [46], in which the considerations section (p. 2) states that one of the CMA’s functions is to regulate, direct, and control activities related to the preservation and protection of the marine environment. In line with this, Article 5.2.6.3.2.1 (p. 5) prohibits the discharge of garbage into the sea, and Annex 2 [46] (p. 12) classifies “incinerator ashes” as Category E garbage. Furthermore, Article 5.2.6.3.5.6, paragraph 1 (p. 8), specifies that onboard incinerators must comply with the provisions of the IMO Resolution MEPC.244(66) [9].

This example from a Non-Contracting Party to the London Protocol demonstrates an alternative approach to addressing the issue of incineration at sea through a system based on prohibition, permitting, and technical limits.

Based on the foregoing, it can be affirmed that within the region there are different approaches to prohibiting incineration at sea, depending on whether or not the country is a Contracting Party to the London Protocol. The case of Mexico demonstrates a clear, simple, and efficient implementation of the Protocol and its guidelines, highlighting the importance of properly defining and prohibiting incineration, as well as explicitly establishing the authority to sanction violations.

In contrast, the Colombian example, considering that the country is a Non-Contracting Party to the Protocol, relies on the framework provided by the MARPOL Convention, specifically Annex V. This approach emphasizes the significance of the term incinerator, supporting its definition and technical parameters through IMO Resolution MEPC.244(66).

These comparative cases reveal that while the specific legal instrument may vary—from direct prohibition under the London Protocol (Mexico) to technical regulation under MARPOL (Colombia)—the cornerstone of every effective system is legal clarity. The definitions of prohibited acts and the standards for equipment must be unambiguous. These examples highlight an opportunity to enhance Peru’s current framework; clarifying the definition of “incineration” and introducing a definition for “incinerator” would bring it into closer alignment with effective regional and global practices.

In light of these examples, the regulatory proposals presented in this research appear coherent and feasible. They are supported by both national and international legal frameworks, and reflect a range of regulatory approaches observed in the Latin American region, which reinforces the technical and preventive nature of these proposed amendments.

4.4. Limitation and Future Work

This study focused on proposing specific legislative amendments to address key shortcomings of Peru’s legal system related to marine incineration, namely the lack of definitions of ‘incineration’ and ‘incinerator’ and the absence of relevant sanctions. Therefore, owing to the clear focus and space constraints of this paper, several important topics related to marine-environmental governance were not covered in depth; this is a limitation of the present study, and a valuable direction for future research.

The global shipping industry is currently undergoing rapid digital transformation. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is actively promoting digital technologies to make shipping more efficient, safer, and sustainable [47]. This change goes beyond incremental technological progress, and profoundly affects how we protect and manage the marine environment. Consequently, the legislative amendments proposed in this study become even more important in the digital era.

In the past, it was almost impossible to monitor everything that happened on the high seas. Today, however, technologies such as the Automatic Identification System (AIS) enable coastal authorities and satellites to track a vessel’s location, speed, and course in real time [48]. Peru is also adopting such tools—for example, through the implementation of a satellite-based vessel-monitoring system (SISESAT) to curb illegal fishing and enhance maritime safety [49]. These powerful surveillance platforms operate according to pre-programmed rules; yet, if the legal definition of ‘unauthorized incineration’ is vague, the system cannot determine which actions constitute violations, and issue alerts accordingly. In other words, no matter how advanced the monitoring technology, it remains ineffective without clear legal standards to which the technology can be applied.

In summary, the legal reforms proposed here are not merely about filling a gap; they are essential for readying Peru’s maritime-governance framework for the digital age. Clear, precise, and internationally compliant regulations will be a prerequisite for protecting Peru’s seas with cutting-edge technologies and achieving the digital transparency demanded by the global shipping sector. Thus, this study provides the legal foundations for adapting Peru’s maritime regulations to a digital future. Developing detailed enforcement and monitoring systems that leverage advanced technologies—and empirically testing their effectiveness—constitutes an important avenue for subsequent research that lies beyond the scope of the present work.

5. Conclusions

This study highlights several areas in Peru’s current maritime regulatory framework on waste incineration at sea that would benefit from further clarification and alignment with international standards. Despite ratifying the London Protocol, the national legislation remains misaligned with international standards, creating significant environmental and legal risks. The analysis concludes that the existing definition of “incineration” is ambiguous, the term “incinerator” is not legally defined, and the administrative sanctioning regime lacks specific infractions for these violations. These gaps collectively undermine the enforcement capacity of the National Maritime Authority (NMA-DICAPI) and compromise Peru’s ability to meet its international obligations.

The NMA-DICAPI, as the competent entity responsible for safeguarding the aquatic environment, has the crucial role of effectively applying and enforcing national legislation and international instruments ratified by Peru, notably including the London Protocol. Given this critical responsibility, it is imperative for Peru to maintain updated legal frameworks and practical regulatory tools capable of covering all aspects and implications of international commitments comprehensively. Such comprehensive legal structures are essential for protecting marine ecosystems and consequently ensuring the health, welfare, and quality of life of the Peruvian population.

Peru, through its NMA-DICAPI, demonstrates robust engagement with the London Protocol and other pertinent international environmental instruments. However, this study has identified several key areas where Peru’s current maritime regulatory framework concerning the incineration of waste at sea would benefit from further clarification and enhancement. As result, it proposes the following concrete recommendations to enhance Peru’s regulatory compliance and effectiveness in implementing the London Protocol:

(1)

Refine and explicitly update the definition of ‘incineration’ to align fully with the standards of the London Protocol, MARPOL conventions, and relevant Peruvian regulations, clearly indicating the intentionality and geographic scope of incineration practices.

(2)

Formally establish a clear and internationally aligned definition for the term ‘incinerator’ within national maritime legislation.

(3)

Introduce explicit and comprehensive administrative and economic sanctions for infractions associated with unauthorized ‘incineration’ activities and misuse of ‘incinerators.’

The implementation of these recommendations is essential for enhancing legal clarity and strengthening enforcement capabilities. By closing these regulatory gaps, Peru will not only ensure robust protection of its marine ecosystems and public health, but also solidify its compliance with international maritime law. Furthermore, these reforms will position Peru to reinforce its status as a responsible maritime nation committed to proactive and sustainable environmental governance.