Containers Lost at Sea: New Regulations Following Amendments to the SOLAS and MARPOL Conventions

On 1 January 2026, the new mandatory international regime, adopted within the framework of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), came into force, making the reporting of containers lost at sea or sighted adrift a specific and standardised obligation.

The reform, which is implemented through amendments to the SOLAS Convention (Chapter V, Safety of Navigation) and corresponding adjustments to MARPOL Protocol I (reports of incidents that may lead to pollution), aims to close a long-standing gap: the existence of general ‘hazard warning’ obligations, but without a uniform definition for the ‘container case’.

The underlying purpose of the reform is twofold. On the one hand, it promotes the effective mitigation of the risk of collision, as semi-submerged or drifting containers pose a clear danger to shipping. Secondly, the aim is to reduce environmental damage and improve the traceability and/or recovery of lost packages, thereby facilitating the development of early response protocols by coastal authorities, SAR (Search and Rescue) services, and operators in the affected areas.

In its latest report, the World Shipping Council (WSC) reported a total of 576 containers lost at sea during 2024 (1), a relatively modest figure given the average for the last decade – 1,274 – particularly when considering the true quantitative scale of the containerised shipping sector in that same year, which ultimately resulted in an estimated 250 million 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs) being transported.

However, it would be a mistake to dismiss these losses as mere logistical incidents; these events have been shown to have a growing legal and operational impact on matters of the utmost importance to the global maritime community and international maritime law: the safety of navigation and the protection of the marine environment.

As we mentioned, from a quantitative perspective, the figures reveal a paradox that clearly explains why the regulator should intervene actively: the phenomenon is statistically insignificant in relation to the total volume transported, but it is critical due to its potential severity.

The most high-profile incidents of recent years clearly illustrate the situations that the reform aims to address by introducing a standard framework for reporting them. In 2024, a cluster of losses was observed on routes particularly exposed to storms, against a backdrop of diversions to the Cape of Good Hope following the security crisis in the Red Sea and attacks on commercial shipping attributed to the Houthis: the “CMA CGM BELEM” reported the loss of up to 99 containers off Richards Bay (ZA) in August 2024, and the “CMA CGM BENJAMIN FRANKLIN” reported the loss of 44 containers in July 2024 whilst sailing in adverse weather conditions in the aforementioned area.

In addition to these more frequent incidents, there have been events which, due to their scale or impact, have had a greater influence on the debate: losses near the coast resulting in goods washing up on beaches and the subsequent public order issues – such as the “EVER LUNAR” in Callao (2025) – massive cargo collapses on the high seas – the “ONE Apus” (2020) – or incidents in which containerised cargo has become a source of severe pollution, such as the “X-PRESS PEARL” (2021).

Taken together, these events have highlighted the need to establish uniform and effective international standards: the speed and quality of reporting determine the effectiveness of navigational warnings, the coordination of the onshore response, and the traceability of the incident – precisely the shortcomings that the amendments to SOLAS and MARPOL Protocol I seek to address.

Legal basis: SOLAS Chapter V and MARPOL Protocol I:

The amendment is incorporated into SOLAS  Chapter V (“Safety of Navigation”), through amendments to Regulations V/31 and V/32 (“Danger Messages”) and, in parallel, clarifications are introduced in MARPOL Protocol I – to harmonise the flow of information when a lost container may contain harmful/polluting substances, avoiding duplication and ensuring consistency between the navigation (SOLAS) and environmental (MARPOL) perspectives.

The adoption is implemented, amongst other things, through Resolution MSC.550(108) (2) for SOLAS, and Resolution MEPC.384(81) (3) for the associated amendments to MARPOL Protocol I.

Through this regulatory approach, the amendment reinforces the mandatory, verifiable and enforceable nature of the notification: it ceases to be a discretionary or merely ‘recommended’ practice and becomes an integral part of the safety standards required by flag States and Port State Control (PSC) authorities.

Obligated parties and factual circumstances, loss and sighting:

Liability is not limited to the vessel that loses containers. The new regulatory framework provides for two scenarios:

a) Vessel involved in the loss: The master is required to report the loss of one or more containers without delay. The report must be addressed to:

• vessels in the vicinity,
• the authority of the State whose coastline is nearest,
• the flag State.

b) Observer vessel (sighting): If a vessel has not suffered any loss but observes containers adrift, the master must report the sighting, also without delay and “to the greatest extent possible”, at least to other vessels in the area and to the nearest coastal State.

c) Situation where the master is unable to fulfil the obligation: The amendment expressly provides for a fallback arrangement: if the ship is abandoned or the master is unable to carry out the ‘reporting’ – for example, in emergency situations – the obligation would pass to the company in accordance with ISM/SOLAS IX – the company. This is significant, as it makes the notification an organisational obligation of the shipping companies/shipowners, rather than purely an individual obligation of the master and/or the ship.

Minimum content of the notification, standardisation and traceability:

One of the key changes is the standardisation of the content of the ‘danger message’. The notification must include:

–    Identification of the vessel.

–    Date/time and position of the loss or sighting.

–    Number of containers involved and, where known, a description of them.

–  Details of dangerous goods and, where applicable, references such as UN numbers or other information relevant to risk management.

–   Circumstances of the incident and relevant details, such as weather conditions and sea state.

Furthermore, the system is designed to operate on a ‘progressive’ basis: if not all the information is available at the outset (e.g. verification of the declared cargo or confirmation of the exact number), an immediate initial report is expected, followed by subsequent updates, culminating in a final verified report once the details have been confirmed.

Institutional data flow from the ship to the IMO’s Global Integrated Maritime Information System (GISIS)

The reform does not stop at issuing warnings; the amendments introduce an additional layer of transparency: flag States must report confirmed losses to the IMO’s GISIS system, thereby creating a global repository of incidents to facilitate trend analysis and traceability, with the further aim of strengthening cross-border cooperation.

From a public law perspective, this establishes a strengthened framework of ‘duty of care’: it is not enough to simply ‘manage the incident internally’; there is a requirement for a formal notification to specific recipients, and an institutional framework that enables mitigation measures (navigational warnings, coordination on land, and any search and rescue operations).

Implications of compliance, ISM audits and potential liability cases:

In terms of compliance, this new obligation has a direct impact on:

a) Safety Management System (SMS/ISM): The reporting obligation must be translated into internal procedures, checklists, specific training programmes and the allocation of responsibilities (master/CSO/company), including communication channels, ‘danger message’ templates and the retention of evidence for this purpose. The provision for substitution by the company when the captain is unable to report similarly reinforces the need for documentary and operational governance.

b) Evidence and traceability of the incident: Early notification and subsequent verification are linked to the need to:

• maintain bridge records (VDR where applicable),
• ensure consistency with the manifest and stowage plan, and
• coordinate with terminals, shippers and insurers. Standardisation makes it easier to compare ‘what should have been done’ with ‘what was actually done’, which increases the risk of criticism for omitting information or delays in its submission.

c) Civil and administrative liability (cross-cutting risk): Although the reform is primarily aimed at promoting safety and care for the marine environment, failure to comply with it may lead to a cascade of adverse effects:

• If a drifting container causes collision damage, failure to report the incident could exacerbate allegations of negligence.
• In the event of pollution or a spill of hazardous goods, the link to MARPOL Protocol I reinforces the duty to report in order to facilitate the response and containment efforts.
• From an insurance perspective (P&I/hull/cargo), the traceability of the report may influence discussions regarding coverage, damage mitigation and cooperation with the authorities.

 Some final thoughts

The entry into force of the new IMO framework for the proper reporting of containers lost at sea marks a significant shift: the loss of containers is no longer treated as a manageable operational by-product to be dealt with on a ‘case-by-case’ basis, but is now classified as a specific incident requiring immediate reporting, with designated recipients, standardised minimum content requirements and institutional traceability (GISIS).

In practice, this will require shipping companies, shipowners, commercial operators and ISM companies to integrate the reporting processes into their SMS systems, to train and update their crews accordingly, and to ensure that communication channels and document verification procedures are in place.

The logic is clear: the faster and more consistent the flow of information, the greater the capacity of the international maritime system – ships, operators, coastal states and flag states – to reduce navigation risks and minimise the potential negative environmental impacts arising from lost containers.

(1) World Shipping Council, Containers Lost at Sea. 2025 Update, junio de 2025, p. 3.

(2) RESOLUTION MSC.550(108) (adopted on 23 May 2024) AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS II-2 AND V OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA, 1974.

(3) RESOLUTION MEPC.384(81) (adopted on 22 March 2024) AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS, 1973, AS MODIFIED BY THE PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING THERETO Amendments to Protocol I of MARPOL (Reporting procedures for the loss of containers).