Seafarers are disposable in shipping, says Human Rights at Sea founder
David Hammond reflects on the charity’s achievements following its closure because of a lack of funding
Hammond said his ‘naivety’ when he set up the UN-consultant charity has been replaced by a realism that crew are ‘a commodity’
HUMAN Rights at Sea was viewed as an “impediment to commercial business”, according to founder David Hammond.
Reflecting on the closure of the charity after 11 years, Hammond said his organisation had run out of funding.
He said the charity had “exploded” during the past decade and the team simply became overwhelmed, both in terms of resources and by the seven-day weeks he and his colleagues ended up regularly working.
Hammond said his organisation “could not convince enough people that what we were doing was right”. That lack of financial support has seen the charity close, after an 11-year period which saw it again consultative status from the UN and develop the Geneva Declaration on Human Rights at Sea.
The barrister turned campaigner said early “naivety” that he would be pushing against an open door in terms of upholding human rights in shipping turned to “the realism that crew workers are dispensable items”.
“They’re commodities,” he said.
“I don’t believe I’m a naive person because of my background and all the military work and conflict zones I’ve been in, but I certainly felt that at least some people should be aligned with what we were doing.
“But underneath all of that, I’m afraid to say, is the deep divisions of competition in the welfare sector. And the reality is that nobody will acknowledge that publicly.”
Hammond described his organisation as “marmite” within shipping. Praised by some for “shining lights in dark corners”, but thought of as “at best an annoyance, and worst an impediment to commercial business” by some.
“Let’s be clear, human rights at sea should be absolutely fundamental, and not at the bottom of the list of any management of a business in the maritime space,” he said.
But instead, human rights were seen as “almost something that we will come to when we’ve done all of the everyday business to make money”.
“It’s highlighted to me that actually the little person doesn't matter,” he said.
Hammond explained, with the rawness of the situation audible in his voice, that he had personally injected considerable resources into Human Rights at Sea. Support from shipping donors was limited, he said.
Profits from consultative business Human Rights at Sea International have helped fund the charity, alongside pro bono work from Hammond in his career as a barrister.
“But nobody wanted an NGO that was going to say, ‘that’s wrong’ or ‘we need to look in this area or this dark corner’.”
While the charity has closed, the website will remain open, alongside the resources it has published over its lifespan, funded by Human Rights at Sea International.
“Human rights at sea is never going to stop. There will be new organisations, new people to take it on down their avenues of interest, and that is, for me, the best outcome,” he said.
“I am really proud of the people who have stuck by us through thick and thin. I’m proud of putting human rights at sea at the forefront in the maritime domain.
“And I’m proud to see the next generation embracing it and academia embracing it.”
Hammond said if that was the legacy of “thousands, if not tens of thousands of pro bono hours”, then he would sleep well.
“But while I initiated it, I could not have done it without people alongside me who were committed and went over and above. So, this genuinely wasn’t just my effort, it was people who believed and still believe.”
Should Human Rights at Sea International continue to be profitable (it separated from the charity little over 12 months ago), there could be scope for a rebirth of Human Rights at Sea in some form.
But for now, the charity is closed and Hammond has been left wondering whether his organisation’s humble beginnings may have been responsible for its downfall.
“If Human Rights at Sea had been created by another entity, a shipping association of standing or a membership organisation of standing, and not a tiny NGO, it may well be somewhere totally different.
“But those issues of competition and the human failing of wanting to control the narrative has ultimately failed at this stage.
“And the industry, the competitive nature of the industry, has effectively shot itself in the foot when it could have had a hub which called out the tough issues, came with sensible recommendations, was backed by full legal reviews and had impact at state level.”