When a container ship burns, the investigation usually ends at a document rather than at the firefighting equipment. A box declared as machinery parts was stowed as machinery parts, and nothing about the ship’s arrangements was designed for what was actually inside it.
The Failure Happens Before Loading
Roughly 250 million containers move by sea annually. About one in ten is declared as carrying dangerous goods, and an estimated further one in twenty holds dangerous goods that were never declared at all, or were declared as something else. That second group is the one that sets ships on fire.
The mechanism is not complicated. Non-declaration or misdeclaration deprives the carrier of the information needed to handle and stow the cargo according to its actual hazards. A box that should have been stowed on deck, away from accommodation, segregated from incompatible goods and accessible for firefighting, instead goes wherever the stowage plan puts an ordinary container. By the time anything happens, the box is in the wrong place, next to the wrong neighbours, under forty others.
The ship was stowed correctly for the cargo it was told it had. Everything that follows is a consequence of that sentence.
The scale is documented. The Cargo Incident Notification System recorded a container cargo fire roughly every nine days in 2023, and misdeclared dangerous goods have been attributed as responsible for more than a quarter of all cargo-related incidents. This is not a rare pathology. It is a structural feature of the trade.
What the IMDG Code Requires, and of Whom
The International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code is mandatory. SOLAS Chapter VII, Part A, Regulation 3 states that the carriage of dangerous goods in packaged form shall be in compliance with the relevant provisions of the IMDG Code, and MARPOL Annex III governs harmful substances carried in packaged form.
The Code covers packaged goods only. Bulk liquid chemicals fall under the IBC Code and bulk solids under the IMSBC Code, which is the instrument behind cargo liquefaction and a separate problem entirely.
The shipper, or consignor: Classification of the goods, correct packaging, marking, labelling, placarding, and the dangerous goods declaration itself. The consignor is whoever prepares a consignment for transport, which may not be the party named on the booking.
The packer: Packing the cargo transport unit under Chapter 7.3, applying the segregation provisions of Chapter 7.2 where multiple dangerous goods share a container, and securing the contents so packages cannot shift and release their contents.
The carrier: Stowage and segregation aboard, based on what has been declared. The carrier cannot segregate against a hazard it has not been told about.
The CTU Code: The joint IMO, ILO and UNECE Code of Practice for Packing of Cargo Transport Units, in place since 2014, gives detailed packing guidance. Unlike the IMDG Code it is not mandatory, though shippers face general obligations to follow such guidance under health and safety legislation in many jurisdictions.
One structural weakness is worth naming. The IMDG Code generally prescribes what must be done without always identifying which party must do it, so where responsibility actually lands depends on national law. That ambiguity is convenient for anyone looking to avoid it.
How the Declaration Goes Wrong
Misdeclaration is not always fraud. A significant share comes from supply chains where the party booking the shipment has limited technical understanding of what they are moving. But some of it is deliberate, and it follows recognisable patterns.
The clearest is the abuse of generic entries. The Code permits “not otherwise specified” entries for substances that do not appear by name in the dangerous goods list, and those entries are not intended to conceal uncertainty. Where a declaration offers little more than a broad class and a packing group, with no indication of composition or subsidiary risks, the hazards have not been properly described.
Lithium batteries and battery-powered equipment are the recurring example, frequently declared as electronics, computer parts or machinery parts. Certain special provisions in the Code also create room for goods to travel without being declared as dangerous, and that route has attracted attention precisely because it is being used as a workaround rather than as intended.
Cargo declared as “machinery parts” is not a lie an inspector can see. It is a lie the stowage plan acts on, and the ship carries it for three weeks.
The commercial pattern behind this is consistent: urgent shipments, competitive freight markets, and last-minute bookings. Risk is not evenly distributed across cargoes or shippers, which is why targeted vigilance toward certain commodities and certain booking patterns is a reasonable operational response rather than a discourtesy.
Why the Ship Cannot Put It Out
A fire in a container stack is close to the worst case shipboard firefighting can face, and the reasons are geometric rather than a shortfall in firefighting equipment.
The seat of the fire is inside a steel box. Water applied from outside cools the container but does not reach the burning contents. The stack is dense and high, so the affected box may be several tiers down and several rows in, unreachable without moving containers that cannot be moved while the stack is burning. Heat transfers to adjacent boxes, whose contents are known only from the same declarations that failed in the first place. And where the cargo involves lithium batteries, thermal runaway produces its own oxygen path and reignition after apparent extinguishment is a real prospect.
Fixed systems designed for machinery spaces and holds are not designed for an open deck stack. Boundary cooling is often the realistic objective rather than extinguishment, and that becomes a question of endurance: fire pump capacity, water supply, crew fatigue and how long assistance takes to arrive. This is the scenario where the emergency fire pump and the fire main stop being an inspection item and become the entire response.
Who Pays, and Why It Is Not Who You Expect
The commercial consequence surprises cargo owners who had nothing to do with the misdeclared box, and it is worth understanding before it arrives.
General average is the principle that where an extraordinary sacrifice or expenditure is made intentionally for the common safety of ship and cargo, the loss is shared proportionally by all parties to the adventure. It is adjusted under the York-Antwerp Rules, incorporated by reference into most bills of lading and charter parties.
In a container ship fire that means firefighting water damage, salvage, towage, port of refuge costs and the associated expenses are apportioned across the ship and all the cargo aboard by value. A shipper whose consignment was correctly declared, properly packed and physically undamaged can still be required to contribute, and to provide security before their cargo is released. The declaration failure was someone else’s. The contribution is everybody’s.
That last point deserves emphasis because it operates without any formal process. Where a misdeclared substance causes a fire, the carrier’s insurer may decline the claim and pursue recovery from the shipper, deliberate misdeclaration causing injury or environmental damage can attract criminal liability under national legislation, and carriers maintain internal records of shippers who have been found non-compliant. Future bookings are simply declined. No enforcement action is required, and there is no appeal.
For everyone else in the chain, the useful conclusion is narrower. The ship’s fire protection was designed on the assumption that it would be told what it was carrying. Where that assumption fails, no amount of equipment compensates, which is why this is a documentation problem that happens to end in a fire.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does a misdeclared container cause a fire?
By defeating stowage and segregation. The carrier plans stowage on the basis of what has been declared, so a box whose actual contents require deck stowage, separation from incompatible goods and accessibility for firefighting is instead placed wherever an ordinary container fits. Non-declaration deprives the carrier of the information needed to handle the cargo safely, and the consequences follow from that single omission.
Is the IMDG Code mandatory?
Yes. SOLAS Chapter VII, Part A, Regulation 3 requires that carriage of dangerous goods in packaged form comply with the IMDG Code, and MARPOL Annex III covers harmful substances in packaged form. The CTU Code, which gives detailed packing guidance, is not mandatory, though shippers may face obligations to follow such guidance under national health and safety legislation.
Why is a container stack fire so hard to fight?
Because the fire is inside a steel box that water cannot penetrate from outside, in a dense stack where the affected container may be several tiers down and unreachable, surrounded by boxes whose contents are known only from the same declarations that already failed. Fixed systems designed for enclosed spaces do not address an open deck stack, so boundary cooling and endurance often become the realistic objective rather than extinguishment.
Why would my cargo contribute to a fire it did not cause?
Because of general average, the principle that an extraordinary sacrifice or expenditure made for the common safety of ship and cargo is shared proportionally by all parties to the adventure, adjusted under the York-Antwerp Rules incorporated into most bills of lading. Firefighting damage, salvage, towage and port of refuge costs are apportioned by value across ship and cargo, so a correctly declared and undamaged consignment can still owe a contribution and require security before release.
Sources: IMO International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, mandatory under SOLAS Chapter VII, Part A, Regulation 3, including Chapter 3.2 dangerous goods list and “not otherwise specified” entries, Chapter 7.2 segregation and Chapter 7.3 packing of cargo transport units · IMO MARPOL Annex III, Prevention of pollution by harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form · IMO, ILO and UNECE Code of Practice for Packing of Cargo Transport Units (CTU Code), 2014, non-mandatory · Cargo Incident Notification System (CINS) container cargo fire data · World Shipping Council container movement and misdeclaration estimates · York-Antwerp Rules, general average adjustment
MarineCraft Journal
Get the next briefing in your inbox
Safety protocols, offshore training, regulation and market analysis, written for Malaysia’s maritime and offshore industry. No sales pitches.
We use your address only to send MarineCraft Journal. Unsubscribe any time. See our Privacy Policy.