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.<\/p>\n
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)<\/a>, <\/strong>aims to close a long-standing gap: the existence of general \u2018hazard warning\u2019 obligations, but without a uniform definition for the \u2018container case\u2019.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n In its latest report, the World Shipping Council (WSC<\/strong>)<\/a>\u00a0reported a total of 576 containers lost at sea during 2024 (1), a relatively modest figure given the average for the last decade \u2013 1,274<\/em> \u2013 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cCMA CGM BELEM\u201d reported the loss of up to 99 containers off Richards Bay (ZA) in August 2024, and the \u201cCMA CGM BENJAMIN FRANKLIN\u201d reported the loss of 44 containers in July 2024 whilst sailing in adverse weather conditions in the aforementioned area.<\/p>\n 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 \u2013 such as the \u201cEVER LUNAR\u201d in Callao (2025) \u2013 massive cargo collapses on the high seas \u2013 the \u201cONE Apus\u201d (2020) \u2013 or incidents in which containerised cargo has become a source of severe pollution, such as the \u201cX-PRESS PEARL\u201d (2021).<\/p>\n 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 \u2013 precisely the shortcomings that the amendments to SOLAS and MARPOL Protocol I seek to address.<\/p>\n Legal basis: SOLAS Chapter V and MARPOL Protocol I:<\/p>\n The amendment is incorporated into SOLAS<\/strong> <\/a>\u00a0Chapter V (\u201cSafety of Navigation\u201d), through amendments to Regulations V\/31 and V\/32 (\u201cDanger Messages\u201d) and, in parallel, clarifications are introduced in MARPOL<\/strong><\/a> 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Through this regulatory approach, the amendment reinforces the mandatory, verifiable and enforceable nature of the notification: it ceases to be a discretionary or merely \u2018recommended\u2019 practice and becomes an integral part of the safety standards required by flag States and Port State Control (PSC) authorities.<\/p>\n Obligated parties and factual circumstances, loss and sighting:<\/p>\n Liability is not limited to the vessel that loses containers. The new regulatory framework provides for two scenarios:<\/p>\n 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:<\/p>\n 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 \u201cto the greatest extent possible\u201d, at least to other vessels in the area and to the nearest coastal State.<\/p>\n 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 \u2018reporting\u2019 \u2013 for example, in emergency situations \u2013 the obligation would pass to the company in accordance with ISM\/SOLAS IX \u2013 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.<\/p>\n Minimum content of the notification, standardisation and traceability:<\/p>\n One of the key changes is the standardisation of the content of the \u2018danger message\u2019. The notification must include:<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Identification of the vessel.<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Date\/time and position of the loss or sighting.<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Number of containers involved and, where known, a description of them.<\/p>\n –\u00a0 Details of dangerous goods and, where applicable, references such as UN numbers or other information relevant to risk management.<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0 Circumstances of the incident and relevant details, such as weather conditions and sea state.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the system is designed to operate on a \u2018progressive\u2019 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.<\/p>\n Institutional data flow from the ship to the IMO\u2019s Global Integrated Maritime Information System (GISIS)<\/p>\n 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\u2019s GISIS system, thereby creating a global repository of incidents to facilitate trend analysis and traceability, with the further aim of strengthening cross-border cooperation.<\/p>\n From a public law perspective, this establishes a strengthened framework of \u2018duty of care\u2019: it is not enough to simply \u2018manage the incident internally\u2019; 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).<\/p>\n Implications of compliance, ISM audits and potential liability cases:<\/p>\n In terms of compliance, this new obligation has a direct impact on:<\/p>\n 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, \u2018danger message\u2019 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.<\/p>\n b) Evidence and traceability of the incident: Early notification and subsequent verification are linked to the need to:<\/p>\n 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:<\/p>\n \u00a0Some final thoughts<\/u><\/p>\n 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 \u2018case-by-case\u2019 basis, but is now classified as a specific incident requiring immediate reporting, with designated recipients, standardised minimum content requirements and institutional traceability (GISIS).<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The logic is clear: the faster and more consistent the flow of information, the greater the capacity of the international maritime system \u2013 ships, operators, coastal states and flag states \u2013 to reduce navigation risks and minimise the potential negative environmental impacts arising from lost containers.<\/p>\n (1) World Shipping Council, Containers Lost at Sea. 2025 Update, junio de 2025, p. 3.<\/em><\/p>\n (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.<\/em><\/p>\n (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).<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":12937,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[77,74,75],"tags":[167],"class_list":["post-12939","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insurance","category-legal-en","category-shipping","tag-aiyonabogados-en"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n
\n