David Hammond was the founder and CEO of Human Rights at Sea (2013 – 2023). He is now the Executive Director of Human Rights at Sea International, a socially invested human rights consultancy which supports victims, dependents and survivors of human rights abuses through charitable funding and business reinvestment.
Upfront, we should all agree that there must be zero tolerance of abuse of workers not just in the global fishing sector, but the wider agricultural supply and value chains. Crucially, workers must be part of the solution.
Therefore, like many readers, I was looking forward to the 10 October Op-Ed article by Mr. Greg Asbed, the co-founder of the Fair Food Program and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers in the US, encouragingly titled: “From farmworkers to fishermen: Lessons from US produce on protecting human rights on the high seas.”
Notably, this same worker-focused approach has been a significant part of a decade’s worth of work by the U.N. accredited U.K. charity, Human Rights at Sea, driving hard-won justice for victims and survivors, of which I was Founder and CEO between 2013-2023.
So, why is this important to know for your readers?
First and foremost, as a civil society CEO, veteran, former Executive Director of a Swiss child rights foundation based in the agricultural sector, and former U.K. criminal prosecution counsel, I have always put those we support and serve, first. Accordingly, Mr. Asbed’s unwarranted condemnation of previous Human Rights at Sea investigation work, and current Human Rights at Sea International U.K. fisheries work was curiously targeted.
By the second half of his article, I was baffled to read inaccuracies concerning the ongoing social governance remediation work that we are correctly reported as undertaking in Northern Ireland (part of the U.K.). Your readers might therefore reasonably consider the approach as an attempt to discredit.
Consequently, we are drawn to legitimately respond for the sake of protecting our integrity, for probity and factual accuracy having been publicly “called out,” thereby challenging our hard-won reputation. This specifically notes that Mr. Asbed had not contacted, nor professionally engaged with us prior to this article. We, however, had reached out.
Now, some important background facts.
First. In a decade of justice and advocacy work, Human Rights at Sea and its former non-profit consultancy have issued extensive international casework, publications, case studies, and policy and legislative developments that can be freely referred to for better awareness around protecting persons working at sea.
The charity received U.N. Economic and Social Council recognition, has been referred to by the U.K. Parliament’s Upper House of Lords in a state-level inquiry as to the suitability of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) being fit for purpose in the 21st Century, and has asked the first U.K. Parliament question on human rights protections at sea on national record. Further, it has helped change primary legislation in New Zealand for seafarers and fishers’ right to have decent onshore welfare facilities positively affecting circa 130,000+ visiting maritime seafarers, annually. And, it has been operating in conflict states.
Second. Mr. Asbed’s highlighting of the exploratory Fair Seafood Program being undertaken by Mr. Williams (ITF Fisheries), Dr. Sparks (Tufts University) and FLEX (Focus on Labor Exploitation) around the planned worker-led social responsibility pilot on the Scottish East Coast, regrettably omits the fact that the original baseline project work was undertaken by Human Rights at Sea in 2020, as the “UK Fisheries Sector Human Rights and Social Welfare Baseline Project 2020.” This was no faux CSR report, and was subject to a presentation and public debate in London – which we encourage you to review.
Third. Your readership may be interested to know that Human Rights at Sea centrally funded the baseline project via The University of Nottingham’s Rights Lab (with Dr. Sparks), while working alongside the (U.K.) Fishermen‘s Mission, welfare organizations, retailers and producers. The publication itself was funded by unrestricted charitable donations from The Fishmonger’s Company and The Seafarers Charity. All of whom are deeply concerned about, and committed to, addressing worker abuse at sea.
In short, these are not the behaviors, ethics, nor the actions of fair-washing entities working alongside internationally respected civil society organizations, some of which have British Royal patronage, and one of which has a history for advocating for fishers going back over 750 years.
Regrettably, your readers could unwittingly form the mistaken view that the remedial governance work currently being undertaken in Northern Ireland by my organization, and which is entirely separate to the Scottish fisheries exposure of the TN trawler case investigated by Scottish police, is simply another corporate fair-washing exercise as we rightly address previous unlawful employment matters publicly raised.
One can therefore only surmise that this was an unfortunate attempt at undermining ongoing remediation activities in the Northern Irish catching sector, to instead position the proposed worker-led Fair Seafood Program pilot as the one and only viable option.
The reality is that true change will “take a village.”
It will need to be comprehensively addressed across by state and non-state parties and is not the role of just a union-led project, nor any one NGO, nor any one welfare organization’s activities. It will require to be undertaken in close working partnerships with many multi-disciplinary expert stakeholders and importantly, without conflicting ideologies and personal agendas interfering with the necessary changes needed for better protecting foreign fisheries workers throughout the UK.
Maybe, we could also focus on the expert and important strategic policy and fisheries advocacy work undertaken by the likes of the FISH Platform, for example.
But who else is impacted?
In an ironic and for some, bitter twist, Mr. Asbed’s opinion affects not just the generational reputation of the tough Northern Irish catching sector and its workers, but may well negatively impact local communities that directly rely on the fisheries supply chain income.
Such actions could well hurt the local seafood factory workers, restaurants and cafes, and the chandler merchants, as well as ongoing financial investment in new business activities for skippers. It certainly tests the patience of experienced fishermen who operate in all weathers, often shoulder-to-shoulder with long-standing employed foreign crew, the majority of whom are treated properly and many, treated as family. We are aware of multiple examples of employers going well over and above for their crew, including in one case privately paying for kidney dialysis.
To wrap up, we must also be clear that not all new foreign crew can readily adapt to the often-harsh environment and challenging conditions of the Irish Sea and Atlantic Ocean as current and long-standing employed foreign workers have done. Nevertheless, some foreign workers may have been and are being unacceptably and unlawfully treated by unscrupulous employers. This must be urgently addressed without delay. Here, we fully agree with Mr. Asbed’s position of assuring the “…actual substance of human rights enforcement.”
In conclusion, the perversity of this Op-Ed is that the very fishing communities and workers the author and his named colleagues need onside to make the Fair Seafood Program project work, are the same U.K. communities and workers being alienated by such misplaced comments.