By ShipCalculators.com · Published 16 June 2026

MARPOL Annex V Regulation 7: Exceptions

Regulation 7 (Exceptions) of the revised MARPOL Annex V, adopted by Resolution MEPC.201(62) and in force 1 January 2013, is the narrow relief valve in an Annex built on a default prohibition. Regulation 3 bans the discharge of all garbage into the sea except as allowed by Regulations 4, 5 and 6; Regulation 7 then disapplies all four of those regulations in four defined situations: discharge to secure the safety of a ship and those on board or to save life at sea; accidental loss of garbage from damage to the ship or its equipment where all reasonable precautions were taken; accidental loss of fishing gear where all reasonable precautions were taken; and the deliberate discharge of fishing gear for the protection of the marine environment or the safety of the ship or its crew. A second paragraph lifts the en route condition of Regulations 4 and 6 for food waste that presents an imminent health risk on board. Regulation 7 is a defence the master must prove, not a discharge entitlement: the burden rests on the ship to document the triggering event and the precautions in the Garbage Record Book under Regulation 10.3, and to report a serious fishing-gear loss to the flag and coastal State under Regulation 10.6.

Contents

Direct answer

MARPOL Annex V Regulation 7, titled “Exceptions,” lists the only circumstances in which the discharge prohibitions of Regulations 3, 4, 5 and 6 do not apply. Paragraph 1 sets four: a discharge necessary to secure the safety of a ship and those on board or to save life at sea; the accidental loss of garbage caused by damage to a ship or its equipment, provided all reasonable precautions were taken before and after the damage to prevent or minimize the loss; the accidental loss of fishing gear provided all reasonable precautions were taken to prevent the loss; and the discharge of fishing gear for the protection of the marine environment or the safety of that ship or its crew. Paragraph 2 disapplies the en route requirement of Regulations 4 and 6 for food waste where it is clear that retaining it on board presents an imminent health risk to people on board. None of these is a planning tool. Each is a defence the master must support with facts, recorded in the Garbage Record Book under Regulation 10.3 and, for a serious fishing-gear loss, reported under Regulation 10.6.

The exact text and where it sits

Regulation 7 is the seventh regulation of the revised Annex V adopted by Resolution MEPC.201(62) on 15 July 2011, in force 1 January 2013. The title in the IMO text is the single word “Exceptions.” That matters because some secondary sources label the whole topic “exemptions,” a different concept. Annex V uses “exception” for Regulation 7 and reserves no separate exemption regulation for general garbage; the only waiver in the Annex is the Garbage Record Book waiver for very short voyages and platforms in Regulation 10.4, which is unrelated to discharge.

The structure of the Annex makes Regulation 7 the hinge. Regulation 3.1 states the rule: “Discharge of all garbage into the sea is prohibited, except as provided otherwise in regulations 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this Annex.” Regulations 4, 5 and 6 then carve out the operational permissions (food waste at distance, cargo residues outside special areas, the platform rule, and the special-area conditions). Regulation 7 sits beside those operational permissions and works differently: it does not grant a distance-and-condition permission, it removes the prohibition entirely for an event that the operator did not plan and, in most cases, did not want.

Read the cross-references carefully. Regulation 3.2 (the plastics ban) and Regulation 3.3 (the cooking-oil ban) each open with “Except as provided in regulation 7.” So even the categorical global bans, plastics and cooking oil, yield to a genuine safety discharge or an accidental loss within Regulation 7. That is the practical reason a sinking ship that sheds plastic-wrapped stores, or a vessel that jettisons drums of waste cooking oil to fight a galley fire, is not in breach: Regulation 7.1.1 reaches the most heavily prohibited categories, not only the conditionally dischargeable ones.

The four exceptions of paragraph 1 are conjunctive in their conditions and disjunctive in their reach. Each is separated by “or,” so a ship needs to satisfy only one to be inside Regulation 7. But the conditions inside an exception, the “all reasonable precautions” requirement in particular, are mandatory: fail the condition and the exception falls away, leaving the discharge unlawful under Regulation 3.

Exception one: securing safety of the ship or saving life at sea

Regulation 7.1.1 disapplies Regulations 3 to 6 for “the discharge of garbage from a ship necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship and those on board or saving life at sea.” Two limbs sit inside one sentence: the ship’s own safety together with the people aboard her, and the saving of life at sea more broadly. The word that does the work is “necessary.” A discharge is covered only when it is needed to achieve the safety outcome, not merely convenient.

The 2012 Guidelines for the implementation of MARPOL Annex V (Resolution MEPC.219(63), adopted 2 March 2012) frame the same idea that runs through every MARPOL annex: the safety of life takes priority over pollution prevention. The mirror provisions in other annexes confirm the reading. Annex I Regulation 4 and Annex II Regulation 3 use almost identical language for oil and noxious liquid substances, and the SOLAS duty to render assistance under Chapter V can itself create the circumstance, a crowded rescue, a flooding casualty, in which a safety discharge becomes necessary.

Concrete examples track the rule. A ship taking on water may jettison deck stores, dunnage, or packaged garbage to reduce topweight or clear a flooding path. A vessel fighting a fire may push burning or flammable waste overboard rather than let it spread. A ship rescuing survivors may discharge stored garbage to free deck space for a crowd of rescued persons. In each case the discharge is the means to a safety end. The test is not whether the master acted perfectly in hindsight; it is whether the discharge was necessary to secure safety in the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at the time.

What the exception does not cover is the discharge dressed up as safety. A master who finds the garbage room full and the next port two days off cannot discharge plastics and call it a safety measure; an overflowing store is a planning failure, not an emergency. The boundary is the same one port state control officers police: the claimed necessity has to map onto a real, documented event. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority states the position plainly in its guidance: the exceptions are limited and the operator must be able to substantiate them.

There is no distance or en route condition on a safety discharge. Regulation 7.1.1 disapplies Regulations 4 and 6 outright, so the 3, 12 and 100 nautical mile thresholds and the requirement to be proceeding on course at normal speed simply do not apply when the safety limb is genuinely engaged. That is deliberate: an emergency rarely waits for the ship to reach 12 nm and steady on course. The price of that freedom is the record. The master who discharges under 7.1.1 must enter the event in the Garbage Record Book with the circumstances and reasons, and that entry is the first thing an investigator reads.

Exception two: accidental loss from damage to the ship or its equipment

Regulation 7.1.2 covers “the accidental loss of garbage resulting from damage to a ship or its equipment, provided that all reasonable precautions have been taken before and after the occurrence of the damage, to prevent or minimize the accidental loss.” Three elements have to line up: the loss is accidental, it results from damage to the ship or its equipment, and the precautions test is met across both phases, before and after.

“Accidental” excludes the deliberate. A master who orders waste over the side during heavy weather to lighten the ship is not within 7.1.2 (he might be within 7.1.1 if safety is genuinely at stake). The damage limb means the loss has to flow from a physical failure: a collision that opens a store, a heavy sea that stoves in a container of garbage on deck, a crane wire that parts and drops a waste skip, a securing arrangement that fails under load. The causal chain from damage to loss is part of what the master must show.

The “before and after” wording is the heart of the exception and the part most often misread. Before the damage, the operator must have taken reasonable precautions to prevent loss: proper stowage and securing of deck garbage, sound containers, maintenance of the equipment whose failure would release waste, and lashings rated for the expected sea state. After the damage, the duty continues: the crew must take reasonable steps to recover what can be recovered and to stop further loss. A ship that suffers genuine collision damage but had left a skip of plastics unsecured on a foredeck, then made no attempt to recover floating debris, has not taken all reasonable precautions and forfeits the exception even though the triggering damage was real.

The standard is objective and is set against the practice of a prudent operator. It is not “did this crew do their best” but “would a competent crew in these conditions have done what this crew did.” The guidelines and class advice point operators to the ship’s Garbage Management Plan and securing arrangements as the documentary evidence of the “before” precautions. Maintenance records, lashing plans, and the GarMP procedures are what convert “we took precautions” from assertion into proof.

Exception three: accidental loss of fishing gear

Regulation 7.1.3 disapplies the prohibitions for “the accidental loss of fishing gear from a ship provided that all reasonable precautions have been taken to prevent such loss.” Fishing gear is Category H in the Garbage Record Book and its discharge is otherwise prohibited globally; the garbage discharge regime gives it no distance permission. So a fishing vessel that parts a net on a snag, or loses pots when a buoy line chafes through, depends entirely on this exception to avoid a discharge breach.

The precautions test here is single-phase: “all reasonable precautions to prevent such loss.” Unlike 7.1.2 there is no explicit “after” duty written into 7.1.3, because lost fishing gear is often unrecoverable at the moment of loss. But the practical expectation, reinforced by the reporting duty discussed below and by IMO’s marine-litter work, is that an operator who can recover gear does so. Reasonable precautions to prevent loss include marking gear so it can be tracked, maintaining lines and connectors, avoiding setting gear where it will foul, and using gear suited to the ground and the conditions.

This exception is where Annex V meets the abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) problem, often called ghost gear. Lost nets and lines keep catching fish and entangling marine mammals long after they leave the vessel; the Annex V hub records entanglement in lost gear as a documented cause of marine mammal mortality. Regulation 7.1.3 does not absolve a careless operator: a vessel that loses gear because it ran lines it knew were worn through, or set in conditions no prudent skipper would, has not taken all reasonable precautions, and the loss is an unlawful discharge of Category H garbage rather than an excused accident.

The burden again sits with the operator. The Garbage Record Book entry for a gear loss must state the precautions taken, and a vessel that records “net lost, cause unknown” with no precautions narrative gives a PSC officer or an investigator nothing to test and undermines its own defence.

Exception four: discharge of fishing gear to protect the marine environment or safety

Regulation 7.1.4 covers “the discharge of fishing gear from a ship for the protection of the marine environment or for the safety of that ship or its crew.” This is the one exception in paragraph 1 that contemplates a deliberate discharge of an otherwise-prohibited category. It exists because there are situations where leaving gear in place is worse than releasing it: gear fouled in a propeller threatening the ship’s control, gear snagged on a sensitive bottom feature where forced recovery would cause more damage, or gear entangling a marine mammal where cutting it free saves the animal.

The two grounds are protection of the marine environment and safety of the ship or its crew. The first is the unusual one: it lets a vessel discharge gear specifically to reduce harm, the opposite of the ordinary discharge calculus. The second overlaps with 7.1.1 but is narrower in object, fishing gear specifically, and broader in trigger, since it reaches crew safety in a fishing operation that need not amount to a full ship-safety emergency.

Because this discharge is deliberate, the documentation has to carry more weight. The Garbage Record Book entry must state the reason: which protective or safety purpose justified releasing the gear. An entry that simply says “gear discharged” without the protective rationale reads, to an inspector, like an ordinary prohibited Category H discharge with a label attached. The substance of the entry, the reason, is what brings it inside 7.1.4.

The fifth exception: imminent health-risk food waste

Regulation 7.2, headed “Exception of en route,” is a different kind of exception and is sometimes missed because it falls outside the paragraph 1 list. It reads: “The en route requirements of regulations 4 and 6 shall not apply to the discharge of food wastes where it is clear the retention on board of these food wastes presents an imminent health risk to the people on board.”

This does not lift the distance requirements; it lifts only the en route condition. A ship that would otherwise have to be proceeding on course at normal speed to discharge food waste at 12 nm may, where retention presents an imminent health risk, discharge while stopped or maneuvering. The distance threshold and the prohibition inside special areas where food-waste discharge is barred still stand. The trigger is narrow: it is not inconvenience or odor but an imminent health risk, for example a refrigeration failure on a long voyage producing decomposing waste that threatens the crew. The phrase “it is clear” puts the evidential weight on the master to show the risk was real and imminent.

Paragraph 2 is worth flagging in any account of Regulation 7 because the regulation’s title is “Exceptions,” plural, and the en route relief is one of them even though it is not in the four-item paragraph 1 list. An article that describes only the four paragraph-1 exceptions has described Regulation 7 incompletely.

The “all reasonable precautions” standard in detail

The phrase “all reasonable precautions” appears in 7.1.2 and 7.1.3 and is the most litigated element of the regulation. It is not a defined term in Annex V, so it takes its meaning from the ordinary objective standard used across MARPOL and from the same wording in Annex I Regulation 4 and Annex II Regulation 3. The test asks what precautions a reasonable, prudent operator would have taken in the same circumstances, judged on the information available at the time rather than with hindsight.

“All” is doing real work. The standard is not “some reasonable precautions” or “the precautions that were convenient”; it is every precaution that a prudent operator would regard as reasonable. A single reasonable precaution omitted can defeat the exception. That is why the standard is described as exacting in practice: the operator must show a complete set of reasonable measures, not a representative sample.

“Reasonable” pulls in the opposite direction and keeps the standard from becoming a strict-liability trap. The operator is not required to take every conceivable measure regardless of cost or practicality, only those a sensible operator would judge worthwhile against the risk. Securing deck garbage against ordinary seas is reasonable; engineering every container to survive a collision is not. The line moves with the circumstances: precautions reasonable for a coaster in sheltered water differ from those reasonable for a vessel crossing the North Atlantic in winter.

For 7.1.2 the standard spans two phases, and both must be satisfied. The “before” phase is preventive: stowage, securing, maintenance, and the procedures in the GarMP. The “after” phase is mitigation: stopping further loss and recovering what is recoverable. A real casualty does not excuse a failure in either phase. The most common way an otherwise-valid accidental-loss claim fails is a defective “before” phase, garbage that was never properly secured, so that the loss was foreseeable and preventable rather than accidental in any meaningful sense.

The master’s burden of proof

Regulation 7 is structured as an exception to a prohibition, and that structure places the burden on the party claiming the exception. The default rule, Regulation 3, prohibits the discharge. A ship caught discharging, or whose records show a discharge, is in breach unless it brings the discharge inside Regulation 7. It is the master and the operator who must establish the facts of the exception, not the enforcing authority who must disprove it.

This allocation has practical force at three stages. At a PSC inspection, the officer who sees a Regulation 7 entry tests whether the recorded facts actually fit an exception; an entry that is vague or internally inconsistent invites a deficiency. At flag-State investigation, where a discharge is reported or detected, the administration looks for the contemporaneous record and the corroborating evidence, log entries, weather records, maintenance history, that show the precautions were genuinely taken. At prosecution, in jurisdictions where unlawful discharge is a criminal offense under national implementing law such as the US Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships and 33 CFR Part 151, the exception functions as an affirmative defence that the defendant must raise and support.

The contemporaneous Garbage Record Book entry is the master’s primary evidence, and its quality determines the strength of the defence. An entry written at the time of the event, stating location, circumstances, reasons, items lost, and precautions taken, is hard to challenge. An entry reconstructed after a PSC officer asks about a discharge is weak and, worse, signals that the record was not kept as the regulation requires. The lesson that runs through MARPOL enforcement is that the record is the case: a strong record makes the exception; a weak or backdated record breaks it and can convert a defensible accident into a falsification charge.

Garbage Record Book entries for Regulation 7 events

Regulation 10.3 is the recording rule for every Regulation 7 event. It states that in the event of any discharge or accidental loss referred to in Regulation 7, an entry must be made in the Garbage Record Book, or for a ship below the record-book tonnage threshold in the ship’s official log-book, recording “the location, circumstances of, and the reasons for the discharge or loss, details of the items discharged or lost, and the reasonable precautions taken to prevent or minimize such discharge or accidental loss.” That tonnage threshold is 100 gross tonnage since Resolution MEPC.360(79) entered force on 1 May 2024, lowered from the earlier 400 gross tonnage.

Each of the five required elements answers a question an investigator will ask. Location fixes where the event happened, which matters for jurisdiction and for whether a special area or polar restriction was in play. Circumstances describe what occurred. Reasons explain why the discharge or loss happened and, for a deliberate 7.1.1 or 7.1.4 discharge, why it was necessary or protective. Details of the items identify the garbage categories and quantities involved. The reasonable precautions element is the one that ties the entry back to the substantive test in 7.1.2 and 7.1.3; an entry that omits it leaves the exception unproven on its face.

The consolidated Garbage Record Book introduced through the Resolution MEPC.277(70) amendments, in force 1 March 2018, formalized this with a dedicated structure. The 2018 record book splits into Part I (general garbage, all ships) and Part II (cargo residues, solid bulk cargo ships), and the standard form carries a separate table for exceptional discharges and accidental losses under Regulation 7, distinct from the routine discharge and incineration tables. That separation exists so the exceptional events stand out for audit rather than hiding among normal entries. The fuller treatment of the record-keeping regime sits in the companion article on Regulation 10 placards, garbage management plans and record-keeping.

Retention follows the general rule in Regulation 10.3: the Garbage Record Book is kept on board and preserved for at least two years from the date of the last entry. A Regulation 7 event recorded eighteen months ago is still live evidence and still subject to inspection. Each completed page is signed by the master, and each entry is signed by the officer in charge, so the record also fixes responsibility.

Regulation 10.6: reporting lost or discharged fishing gear

The Garbage Record Book entry is internal. Regulation 10.6, added by Resolution MEPC.277(70) and in force from 1 March 2018, adds an external reporting duty for fishing gear. Where the accidental loss or discharge of fishing gear poses a significant threat to the marine environment or to navigation, the event must be reported to the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly and, where the loss or discharge occurs within waters subject to the jurisdiction of a coastal State, also to that coastal State.

Two thresholds shape the duty. First, it bites only on a “significant threat” to the marine environment or to navigation, not on every minor gear loss, so a single lost pot in deep water away from shipping is recorded under Regulation 10.3 but need not trigger the 10.6 report, whereas a large net adrift in a traffic separation scheme does. Second, the coastal-State limb engages only where the event happens inside that State’s jurisdictional waters. A gear loss on the high seas is reported to the flag State alone.

Regulation 10.6 connects directly to both fishing-gear exceptions. A loss claimed under 7.1.3 (accidental) and a discharge claimed under 7.1.4 (protective or safety) are exactly the events that, if they pose a significant threat, trigger the report. The reporting duty also reinforces the ghost-gear policy that drives IMO’s marine-litter program; the Annex V hub records the 2025 Action Plan to Address Marine Plastic Litter from Ships, which targets stronger fishing-gear measures by 2030 and contemplates extending mandatory reporting of gear loss to the Organization itself.

The record and the report are separate obligations and a vessel can owe both. A serious gear loss requires the Garbage Record Book entry under Regulation 10.3 and the flag- and coastal-State report under Regulation 10.6. Doing one does not discharge the other.

How PSC and flag States treat claimed exceptions

Port state control under Regulation 9 reaches operational requirements where there are clear grounds for believing the master or crew are not familiar with essential garbage-pollution procedures. A claimed Regulation 7 exception is exactly the kind of operational matter a PSC officer scrutinizes, because it is the point where a prohibited discharge becomes lawful or stays unlawful. The officer’s method is documentary cross-checking: read the Garbage Record Book Regulation 7 entry, then test it against the deck log, the engine log, weather records, the GarMP, and reception-facility receipts.

The mismatch is what an officer hunts for. Implausible quantities, a discharge position inside a prohibited area, a “safety” discharge on a calm day with no corroborating casualty, an accidental-loss entry with no precautions narrative: each is a clear ground that turns a claimed exception into a deficiency. The Annex V hub lists Garbage Record Book entries inconsistent with actual operations among the frequently cited Annex V deficiencies in PSC inspection, and discharge positions inside prohibited areas are a flag that an exception is being used to paper over an ordinary violation.

Regional PSC regimes apply the same logic. The Paris MoU and Tokyo MoU target inspection on risk and treat Annex V operational deficiencies as detainable where they are serious enough; a falsified or unsupported Regulation 7 entry can move from a recorded deficiency to a detention and, where national law makes discharge a criminal offense, to a referral. Under Regulation 9.2 the Party can ensure the ship does not sail until the situation is brought to order.

Flag States carry the investigative weight when a discharge is reported or detected outside a port call. The flag administration tests the same evidence the PSC officer would, but with access to the operator’s wider records and, in serious cases, to the casualty file. The pattern that surfaces in major MARPOL prosecutions is consistent: the offense that does the real damage is rarely the discharge alone; it is the false record created to dress an unlawful discharge as a Regulation 7 event. The two-year retention rule in Regulation 10.3 means those records remain available long enough for an investigation to reach them.

The treatment of exceptions also turns on context the inspector can read off the chart. A claimed exception in a special area or in polar waters draws closer scrutiny because the discharge baseline there is stricter. In Antarctic and Arctic waters governed by the Polar Code Part II-A, the discharge regime is tighter than Annex V’s general rules and operators retain garbage for shore delivery; an exception covers a genuine safety emergency or accident, not a planned discharge, and an inspector who sees a Regulation 7 entry for a polar discharge will probe hard for the underlying event.

The penalty exposure when an exception fails is real, not theoretical. Under national implementing law a discharge that does not fall inside Regulation 7 is an unlawful discharge, and the record that claimed the exception can become evidence of a separate falsification offense. In the United States the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships and 33 CFR Part 151 carry criminal liability, and the whistleblower mechanism that pays crew members a share of collected fines has produced large enforcement actions where false Garbage Record Book entries, not the discharge alone, drove the case. The Annex V hub records multi-annex corporate settlements in the tens of millions of dollars in which record falsification was central. A weak Regulation 7 entry is not a minor paperwork problem; it is the document a prosecutor builds the case around.

Relationship to Regulations 3, 4, 5 and 6

Regulation 7 cannot be read alone; it is defined entirely by the regulations it disapplies. Regulation 3 is the prohibition: all garbage discharge banned, plastics and cooking oil banned categorically. Regulation 4 sets the operational permissions outside special areas, the 3 nm comminuted and 12 nm uncomminuted food-waste rules, the 12 nm non-HME cargo residue rule, and the animal-carcass and cleaning-agent provisions. Regulation 5 governs discharge from fixed and floating platforms and ships within 500 m of them. Regulation 6 sets the stricter special-area conditions.

When Regulation 7 applies, all four of those regulations switch off for the event in question. That is a broad disapplication. It means the distance thresholds, the en route condition, the special-area prohibitions, and the platform rule all cease to bind for a genuine safety discharge or accidental loss. A ship in a special area where Regulation 6 prohibits food-waste discharge inside 12 nm is nonetheless within Regulation 7 if a real safety emergency forces a discharge there. The exception overrides the location-based prohibition because the safety of life takes precedence.

The line between a Regulation 4 or 6 permission and a Regulation 7 exception is the line between planning and event. A discharge that satisfies Regulation 4, food waste comminuted to under 25 mm, beyond 3 nm, while en route, is a lawful planned operation recorded as an ordinary discharge. A discharge that fits Regulation 7 is an unplanned response to an event, recorded under Regulation 10.3 with circumstances, reasons, and precautions. Confusing the two is the most common documentary error: recording a planned operational discharge as a Regulation 7 event, or recording a genuine emergency as a routine discharge. Each misclassification weakens the record and invites a deficiency.

Differences from the exception provisions in other MARPOL annexes

The Regulation 7 wording is close to the equivalent provisions in the other annexes, which helps a multi-annex operator apply a consistent standard, but the categories differ. Annex I Regulation 4 excepts oil discharge for ship safety or saving life, and accidental damage discharge subject to the all-reasonable-precautions test. Annex II Regulation 3 does the same for noxious liquid substances. The shared structure, a safety limb and an accidental-damage limb governed by all reasonable precautions, lets a master apply one mental model across oil, chemicals, and garbage.

What is distinctive to Annex V is the pair of fishing-gear exceptions. Neither Annex I nor Annex II has anything like 7.1.3 (accidental loss of fishing gear) or 7.1.4 (protective discharge of fishing gear), because fishing gear is a garbage problem unique to Annex V’s Category H. The fishing-gear exceptions and their reporting tie-in under Regulation 10.6 are the part of Regulation 7 with no analogue elsewhere in MARPOL, and they reflect the specific ghost-gear policy that Annex V carries and the other annexes do not.

The en route exception in Regulation 7.2 is also Annex V specific, because the en route condition itself is an Annex V construct tied to food-waste and cargo-residue discharge. There is no parallel in the oil or chemical annexes, where discharge is controlled by concentration, rate, and equipment rather than by a requirement to be proceeding on course.

Practical guidance for the master and operator

The operator’s first task is to keep Regulation 7 out of normal operations. The exception is for events, not for shortfalls in planning. A ship that sizes its storage to the voyage, follows its GarMP, and delivers to reception facilities should rarely touch Regulation 7. When storage planning fails and the temptation arises to call an overflow a safety discharge, the right response is to deliver ashore or hold, not to manufacture an exception that the records will not support.

When a genuine Regulation 7 event happens, the discipline is to record it immediately and fully. Note the time and position at the moment of the event, not at the next convenient log entry. State the circumstances factually. State the reason in terms that map onto the specific exception: “necessary to secure safety” for 7.1.1, the damage and the recovery effort for 7.1.2, the precautions for 7.1.3, the protective or safety purpose for 7.1.4. List the items and estimated quantities. Set out the reasonable precautions that were in place and, for a damage event, those taken afterward. For a serious fishing-gear loss, make the Regulation 10.6 report to the flag State and, if in coastal-State waters, to that State, and note the report in the record.

Corroboration strengthens the entry. A safety discharge during a casualty should align with the deck and engine logs, the weather record, and any distress or assistance communications. An accidental loss from damage should align with the damage report, maintenance and lashing records, and photographs where available. The objective is a record that an inspector or investigator can verify against independent evidence, because a Regulation 7 claim that stands only on the master’s word is the weakest form of the defence.

Train the crew on the boundary. PSC officers test crew familiarity under Regulation 9, and a crew that cannot explain when Regulation 7 applies, or that treats it as a general discharge permission, is itself a clear ground for further inspection. The GarMP should describe the recording procedure for exceptional discharges and accidental losses so the response is a drilled routine rather than an improvisation under pressure.

Limitations

This article describes Regulation 7 of the revised MARPOL Annex V as adopted by Resolution MEPC.201(62) (in force 1 January 2013) and as it interacts with the Regulation 10 record-keeping and reporting provisions, including the Regulation 10.6 fishing-gear reporting duty added by Resolution MEPC.277(70) (in force 1 March 2018). It is a reference for practitioners, not a substitute for the consolidated Annex V text and the ship’s own Garbage Management Plan. Where this summary and the instruments differ, the instruments govern.

The “all reasonable precautions” standard is not defined in Annex V and is applied case by case by flag administrations, PSC authorities, and courts under national implementing law. The general formulation here, the objective prudent-operator test across the before and after phases for damage events, reflects the consistent reading across MARPOL Annexes I, II and V, but the precise application turns on the facts and the forum. A master facing a real event should act on the safety priority first and document second, then take legal advice on the defence rather than relying on a general article.

The reporting threshold in Regulation 10.6, a “significant threat to the marine environment or navigation,” is a judgment the master must make on the facts. The treatment of that threshold, and the future extension of gear-loss reporting to the Organization contemplated in IMO’s marine-litter work, may change as the 2025 Action Plan measures are developed toward 2030. Confirm the current text and any further amendments against the latest consolidated Annex V before relying on the reporting duty. National implementing law, such as the US Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships and 33 CFR Part 151, can impose its own evidentiary and penalty regime on top of the Annex; the burden, the defence, and the consequences in any given case follow the law of the jurisdiction asserting control.

References

IMO Resolution MEPC.201(62) (adopted 15 July 2011), revised MARPOL Annex V, Regulation 7 (Exceptions) and Regulation 10 (Placards, garbage management plans and garbage record-keeping); in force 1 January 2013.
IMO Resolution MEPC.219(63) (adopted 2 March 2012), 2012 Guidelines for the implementation of MARPOL Annex V (later amended by MEPC.295(71)).
IMO Resolution MEPC.277(70) (adopted October 2016, in force 1 March 2018), amendments to MARPOL Annex V; introduced the two-part Garbage Record Book and the Regulation 10.6 fishing-gear reporting duty.
Australian Maritime Safety Authority, MARPOL Annex V exceptions and penalties (national implementation guidance).
IMO, Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships (MARPOL Annex V) overview.

Frequently asked questions

What does Regulation 7 of MARPOL Annex V cover?

Regulation 7 lists the limited cases where the discharge prohibitions in Regulations 3, 4, 5 and 6 do not apply. Paragraph 1 sets four exceptions: discharge necessary to secure the safety of a ship and those on board or to save life at sea; accidental loss of garbage from damage to a ship or its equipment, if all reasonable precautions were taken before and after the damage; accidental loss of fishing gear if all reasonable precautions were taken to prevent the loss; and discharge of fishing gear for the protection of the marine environment or the safety of the ship or its crew. Paragraph 2 disapplies the en route requirement of Regulations 4 and 6 for food waste where retention presents an imminent health risk to people on board.

Does Regulation 7 permit routine discharge that would otherwise be banned?

No. Regulation 7 is a defence to a charge of unlawful discharge, not a discharge permission. Each exception is tied to a specific triggering event (a safety emergency, accidental damage, an unintended gear loss, or a deliberate gear discharge to protect the marine environment). A discharge planned in advance for operational convenience does not qualify. The master who relies on an exception carries the burden of showing the facts that bring the discharge inside Regulation 7, including the reasonable precautions taken.

What is the all reasonable precautions standard?

For accidental loss under Regulation 7.1.2 (damage) and 7.1.3 (fishing gear), the exception applies only if all reasonable precautions were taken to prevent or minimize the loss. The test is objective: what a prudent operator in the same circumstances would have done. For damage it covers actions before and after the event, including maintenance, securing of stores, and prompt recovery once damage occurs. A bare assertion that gear was lost does not satisfy it; the Garbage Record Book entry must state the precautions taken.

Where is the accidental loss or exceptional discharge recorded?

Regulation 10.3 requires an entry in the Garbage Record Book for any discharge or accidental loss referred to in Regulation 7, or in the ship's official log-book for a ship below the record-book tonnage threshold (100 gross tonnage since Resolution MEPC.360(79) entered force on 1 May 2024, 400 gross tonnage before that). The entry must state the location, the circumstances of and reasons for the discharge or loss, details of the items discharged or lost, and the reasonable precautions taken. The 2018 two-part Garbage Record Book carries a separate table for these Regulation 7 events.

Do fishing gear losses have to be reported to authorities?

Yes, where the loss poses a threat. Regulation 10.6, added by Resolution MEPC.277(70) in force 1 March 2018, requires accidental loss or discharge of fishing gear that poses a significant threat to the marine environment or to navigation to be reported to the flag State and, where the loss occurs in waters under the jurisdiction of a coastal State, to that coastal State. This is separate from the Garbage Record Book entry.

Do the Regulation 7 exceptions apply in polar waters?

The safety and accidental-loss exceptions remain available because they are part of Annex V itself, but the Polar Code Part II-A discharge regime is stricter and does not treat Regulation 7 as a route to routine discharge. In Antarctic and Arctic waters operators retain garbage for shore delivery; an exception covers a genuine emergency or accident, not a planned discharge.