More containers lost off Isle of Wight

[ylop]

I never said I wanted divers and ships actually.

But you are very confident that “every major port” has the means to recover them. Bearing in mind a loaded container can be over 30 tonnes (and still float) and containers rarely fall off in calm conditions I’d love to see how that’s done without being prepared to put people in the water or having specialist lifting equipment. When I said you need more than a RIB you quickly dismissed that as not being what you meant.

Raise costs by adding liability and suddenly solutions will be found. Free market economics.

Or the costs are just passed to the consumer because the curious little market in the North of Europe is insignificant in global shipping terms.

These containers are either dangerously overloaded or the securing methods are inadequate for the conditions.

We absolutely can make better containers

We can bug containers are an international standard evolved through international cooperation not “sovereign states legislating”. The costs of requiring a “UK standard” container for UK voyages would be crazy. So I come back to the “it’s complicated” argument - but feel free to stand for parliament and make this your number one priority!

and we can put fewer containers on each ship. What we need is to make that cheaper than losing them over the side.

Is it environmentally better to lose a very small proportion of containers (not all of which will even be loaded or may be loaded with environmentally inert materials) or to run ships at lower capacity?

And yes, in the short term we should endeavour to clean up the mess and charge back to shipping for doing so. It’s just the responsible thing to do.

Agreed, although that might make ships less inclined to report losses, and thus expose sailors to more unexpected hazards!

 

[lustyd]

Or the costs are just passed to the consumer because the curious little market in the North of Europe is insignificant in global shipping terms.

Yes, obviously the costs will pass to consumers. What's your problem with that? We can't just keep ruining the planet for cheap goods and profit, eventually the bill comes due one way or another. The previous generation hopes they'll be dead before the real problems start, the next generation don't have that luxury.

We can bug containers are an international standard evolved through international cooperation not “sovereign states legislating”.

That "international cooperation" starts with legislation. It's the lowest common denominator (as free market dictates) and so will rise to meet changing landscapes. The Plimsoll line was forced on shipping companies and we can (hopefully) all agree that was a good move, why would you be opposed to further progress?

 

[ylop]

Yes, obviously the costs will pass to consumers. What's your problem with that?

I don't have a problem so long as "all" countries are contributing - I don't want UK inflation to be significantly out of step with everywhere else because we've decided that containers of bananas and powdered milk are an environmental hazard.

We can't just keep ruining the planet for cheap goods and profit, eventually the bill comes due one way or another.

Are the contents of lost containers even in the top 100 sources of global pollution? Of course you can argue all pollution matters (I assume you are pumping out your holding tank, not using antifouling, etc).

That "international cooperation" starts with legislation. It's the lowest common denominator (as free market dictates) and so will rise to meet changing landscapes. The Plimsoll line was forced on shipping companies and we can (hopefully) all agree that was a good move, why would you be opposed to further progress?

I'm not - I'm suggesting that if you want to tackle the problem of lost containers, tackling it internationally would make much more sense, and that's why we have the IMO. The number of lost containers are somewhat uncertain but generally suggested to be in the low thousands (the IMO has just introduced new regulations requiring reporting, which came into play on 1/1/2026), but a tiny proportion of those end up in UK waters. For whatever reason, quite possibly a coincidence, there's been a bunch of small incidents in one patch of the UK recently, and now you are demanding action. Your proposition is not that we stop containers falling off ships - but that if they happen to be in UK waters when they do that vessel owners have slightly more responsibility than they might have today - despite neither knowing what responsibility they currently have not actually knowing how feasible your obligation to recover is!

 

[lustyd]

despite neither knowing what responsibility they currently have not actually knowing how feasible your obligation to recover is!

Not sure where you got this from, but it's not correct on either count.

 

[ylop]

Not sure where you got this from, but it's not correct on either count.

knowing what responsibility they currently have: posts 22/23/36 etc
how feasible your obligation to recover is: posts 37/40.

 

[lustyd]

knowing what responsibility they currently have: posts 22/23/36 etc
how feasible your obligation to recover is: posts 37/40.

What specifically do you think I’ve said that suggests I don’t understand either of those things? I’ve certainly said it needs change (it does) and that change is possible (it is). I realise you don’t want change, and perhaps that’s a vested interest but it doesn’t mean I’m wrong or that I don’t understand the subject.

 

[Tranona]

There are 2 issues here. The first is prevention - stopping containers from falling off ships. As in post#46 this requires international action and the proper mechanism is through the IMO

The second is dealing with the mess if things go wrong - the subject of this thread. Whilst the problem is similar world wide, the remedies are mostly at a state level The mechanism for dealing with this is , at least in the Anglo world is through the Law of Torts. The landmark case is Donoghue vs Stevenson (1932) which established the principles of negligence here if you fancy an interesting read
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson#:~:text=She%20fell%20ill%2C%20and%20subsequently,lead%20to%20harm%20to%20consumers. Similar principles apply in most of world that derives its law from a European or Anglo base.

This bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yqlnvng9zo shows how it works. The insurers of the Baltic Klipper accept liability and pay for the clean up. If there is a dispute it is dealt with through the courts. The insurer also pays for the lost containers and cargo. No need for "reform" here - the current law is more than adequate to deal with the local issues. More problematic is the wider issue of the possible damage to the environment like any other human activity; difficult to both quantify and remedy. The current approach is to minimise the losses by better designs and processes through the IMO.

Danger of floating or semi submerged containers causing damage to other vessels, particularly yachts leading to losses including loss of life is a very grey area, both as to how often and in what circumstances it occurs and is there any liability on the owners of the container or the ship it fell from? Have their been enough incidents leading to loss for others to suggest that a system of automatic identification might reduce? Are there any cases where a claim against an owner has failed? Don't recall any but maybe others can.

This bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yqlnvng9zo shows how it works. The Baltic Klipper insurers accept liability and pay for the clean up. Disputes may of course arise but are dealt with through the courts. No need for any "reform" here. Of course there are potentially other consequences of containers going into the sea. The most obvious is loss of the container and cargo, but again the vessel's insurer usually accepts this. The damage caused by containers to the environment is much more difficult to first quantify and then determie

 

[lustyd]

The insurers of the Baltic Klipper accept liability and pay for the clean up.

But just beach cleanup. The approach until they hit land is very much watch and hope they either sink or hit land.

 

[Tranona]

Just as easy for you to say impossible with no evidence. The Solent in particular is full of vessels capable of recovering a container. As are most of our major ports.

When sail and manpower were the only means of recovery, and we didn’t understand environmental impact, and it was a few sacks of coal, it was entirely reasonable to assume it didn’t matter. None of those things have been true for decades. We have the infrastructure and means of recovery, we do understand (some of us, at least…) the environmental impact, and it’s no longer a few sacks of coal but a few tens of tons of stuff.

If it is so full as you claim maybe you can say exactly what these resources are and why they are not used in the way you suggest.

Suggest you look at the amount of shipping and cargoes lost in the N Atlantic during WW2 or the shipping lost in the English Channel in the period from the mid 15th century onwards. It makes the numbers of containers lost look like small beer.

You really seem to be a stranger to history. Keep things in perspective. The English Channel is the busiest waterway in the world for container shipping. I bet the average number of containers a year that go overboard is barely in double figures. OK containers full of bananas or Lego are not nice things to have fetch up on the beach, but they are so rare that they get headline news. Plenty of other much more pressing issues to get worked up about.

 

[ylop]

What specifically do you think I’ve said that suggests I don’t understand either of those things?

OK I'll spell it out for you:
Post 18 - you said they are clearly liable. Post 22 I pointed out they might not be. Post 23 you conceeded that may be right and so things need to change. Clearly you don't actually know (and I don't claim to either) what the status quo is - bit you want to change anyway!

Post 9 - you said if someone had a boat and recovered them, and post 37 the solent is full of suitable boats, you told me its not RIBs (as though that was a stupid thought), but then in post 40 dismissed my suggestion that its a job for specialist vessels and divers and tranona's post 36 saying easy to say with no evidence - you didn't back this up with examples of containers being recovered you said "there's no evidence they can't". So show us the sort of boat you need to lift a 30 tonne, 40' container out the sea, and how in anything but calm conditions that's done with no risk to the recovery vessel or its crew. [if its partially flooded it could weigh over 60 tonnes and just be afloat]

I’ve certainly said it needs change (it does) and that change is possible (it is).

Does it - the data there is implies despite the number of containers moving around the world increasing the number lost is decreasing.

I realise you don’t want change,

You might be wrong. I'd rather they kept the containers on board - I don't think we need an industry of lifting barges on standby everywhere a container might get lost.

and perhaps that’s a vested interest but

I've no vested interest (any more than any other UK citizen who doesn't want needless inflation to solve a problem that rarely happens in UK waters) - there's a strange thing on this forum where people accuse anyone who debates a point as having a vested interest. To me, that says something about the protagonist - that they would change their views if they had a vested interest.

it doesn’t mean I’m wrong or that I don’t understand the subject.

You can easily convince me you know what you are talking about by showing examples of containers being recovered at sea. There must be occasions when the cargo would be valuable enough to make it worthwhile trying if there were a suitable boat around.

Quite simply I don't think your ideas are very well thought through. I don't mind people having a train of consciousness and sharing thoughts as they come to mind.

 

[Tranona]

But just beach cleanup. The approach until they hit land is very much watch and hope they either sink or hit land.

Please explain what you mean by this. Are you saying that those containers caused other damage that is not covered by the insurers?

 

[lustyd]

WW2 is almost a century back and was a war. What a weird thing to bring up to justify your position. I’m sorry but you sound like an entitled boomer.

 

[lustyd]

examples of containers being recovered at sea

If they’re floating any tug in the country could tow one. Do you disagree?

 

[lustyd]

there's a strange thing on this forum where people accuse anyone who debates a point as having a vested interest.

You’re on a yachting forum arguing in favour of dumping crap in the sea. I can’t think of another sensible angle to view that from.

 

[Tranona]

WW2 is almost a century back and was a war. What a weird thing to bring up to justify your position. I’m sorry but you sound like an entitled boomer.

What does it matter that it was a century (actually 80-85 years) back - and does it not count as debris harmful to the environment because it occurred in wartime whereas the Chinese tat you disapprove of does. You started the thing about the past with your strange reference to 1850. As I say you do seem a stranger to history and unable to see things in context. I don't need to justify my "position" - whatever you mean by that. I am rather partial to rational argument supported by evidence if possible. You might try it sometime.
You are talking about debris on the seabed and harm to the environment. What does it matter that it is a century (actually 80-85 years) back Does that not count justr because it was durig wa

 

[Mister E]

If the problem is smaller boats hitting them then the easy answer is to stop those boats using the area.
A bonus for the relevant authorities is there is so very little cost and very easy to do.
As there is such small numbers of containers involved I can imagine the easy option being taken.

 

[Tranona]

If the problem is smaller boats hitting them then the easy answer is to stop those boats using the area.
A bonus for the relevant authorities is there is so very little cost and very easy to do.
As there is such small numbers of containers involved I can imagine the easy option being taken.

Point is, that does not seem to be a problem. A Notice to Mariners is issued warning of possible floating containers in the area - they are pretty big things and doubt there are many small boats sailing in the east Solent and Selsey area in the middle of winter. No reports of any collisions.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

Up to now reporting of overboard container was not mandatory. However, on the 01 January 2026, an IMO resolution was implemented that makes container loss reporting now mandatory via SOLAS and MARPOL amendments. The IMO work on container loss can be noted in the second link.

IMO moves at a glacial pace, and receives feedback from member countries via various organisations. This means that on the face of it, simple and robust solutions, do not always get adopted as interests from ship owners, cargo handling agents, harbours may carry weight, especially if productivity is impacted and profits threatened. A lot of investment has been spent on containerised handling mostly to ensure fast turnaround and onward transportation to meet, for example, a global, high volume, just in time delivery strategy. Any changes to the locking and securing arrangements that take longer to handle the container, might not be supported by member nation representatives to the IMO.

Existing standards for container securing are probably adequate and work, but the usual suspects are at play when a container is lost overboard: old equipment, inadequately following procedures, training and competency. Assuming the figures are correct, then containers are transported safely around the globe with a very high probability.

The New 2026 SOLAS Container Loss Reporting Framework.

Safe transport of containers

 

[lustyd]

What does it matter that it was a century (actually 80-85 years) back - and does it not count as debris harmful to the environment because it occurred in wartime whereas the Chinese tat you disapprove of does. You started the thing about the past with your strange reference to 1850. As I say you do seem a stranger to history and unable to see things in context. I don't need to justify my "position" - whatever you mean by that. I am rather partial to rational argument supported by evidence if possible. You might try it sometime.
You are talking about debris on the seabed and harm to the environment. What does it matter that it is a century (actually 80-85 years) back Does that not count justr because it was durig wa

I raised history precisely because it’s irrelevant. Times change and capability grows.

 

[lustyd]

If the problem is smaller boats hitting them then the easy answer is to stop those boats using the area.
A bonus for the relevant authorities is there is so very little cost and very easy to do.
As there is such small numbers of containers involved I can imagine the easy option being taken.

That’s literally the opposite of a solution. It’s avoidance in every way.