stubnitz

STUBNITZ INFO - 200909-12 - Amsterdam Administrative Harassment

The destiny of the SIM is of course closely intertwined with the one of the ship. And the STUBNITZ faced last year some very serious difficulties. The interdiction we faced, to hold any event for more than three month in Amsterdam was not the least of them.

A quick look at the structural fragileness of the MS STUBNITZ (1.) and the administrative mess we have been facing (2.).

1.The structural fragileness of the MS STUBNITZ:
The MS STUBNITZ is a fragile institution and it has always been a major challenge to keep it functioning those last 17 years.

1.1. First aspect: A self supported structure:
The first aspect of this fragileness is that the MS STUBNITZ is so far an almost completely (>80%) self supported project, which makes it very dependent on the success of the events it organizes, while it is dedicated to experimental non commercial productions, which are by essence not the ones that bring the most income.

Hopefully this matter could always be solved through a delicate balance between commercial and non commercial activities. It remains that if m/v STUBNITZ cannot hold events, she dies.

1.2. Second aspect: A sui generis juristic object:
The second major aspect is that the STUBNITZ is almost the sole vessel of its kind: A vessel organizing public events during port down times and bringing audiences to harbors, which are always very secured sites.

Hence the negotiations with relevant authorities are always very unpredictable since, for example and among other parameters, no authority has express jurisdiction over our situation.

Besides, this second aspect has become increasingly difficult to deal with in Northern Europe, due to the enhancement of safety & security regulations.

This point has been our major issue last year.

2.Amsterdam mess: the International Ship & Port Facility Security Code (ISPS

Ou main problem last year wass related to the International Ship & Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) which since 2004 increasingly excludes public accessibility to shipping in general - comparable to procedures in aviation - which for our project obviously is not wished.

In 2007 the German flag State did exempt Stubnitz of the obligations of the ISPS code, but the European Union, DG2, has decided against it. Therefore Stubnitz is a security-certified ship which usually operates in non-certified (public) areas. Depending on the quite different regional implementations of the port facility procedures, Stubnitz has met different scales of difficulties within this context:

Bad news:

- We lost Hamburg as a regular port, as 'our' mooring was turned in to a certified facility, where no public audience has access, the soon a certified ship is in place.

- In Amsterdam, where we had a 5 years contract for a non-certified mooring, the designated authorities requested a certification of the area in order to accept further activities of Stubnitz at this place. In 2009 we have worked months on administrating this request, fenced the area before arrival, but in the end it proved to be impossible to perform the cultural activities by fulfilling the requirements such as single visitors search on drugs and weapons and surveillance of all areas to the satisfaction of the authorities. In consequence we had a no of the authorities and had to cancel a 3 months of scheduled activities from September to November 2009.

OK news

- For the berth in Rostock - our home port - we where from begin 2009 not allowed to approach as a certified ship, therefore we had to lay down the Certification (and to build it up again when leaving) before entering. Only actually, for a period of activities this spring, we have achieved an agreement on a more reasonable solution.

- In Denmark are no security related troubles, as the local Port Facility Security Plans do not avoid certified ships in non certifies ports, the long there is no cargo handling & similar involved. Therefore Denmark became economically more and more important for our project.