Jörg Rock from Berlin's Senatsverwaltung für Inneres und Sport (Senate Department for the Interior and Sport) is the Head of Supervision of the Uniformed Police in Berlin and the manager of the project 'Protection of Public Spaces in Berlin'. He talks to us about the fortifications done at the Breitscheidplatz in Berlin after the truck ramming attack at the Christmas market on 19 December 2016.

Protection of Public Spaces Newsletter (PPSN): After the Berlin Christmas market attacks in 2016 what measures were introduced to fortify the Breitscheidplatz?

Jörg Rock (JR):

On the 19 December 2016 the Islamist terrorist Anis Amri attacked the Christmas Market on Berlin Breitscheidplatz ramming a truck. He killed 12 people (including the truck driver who was shot by the terrorist) and injured 70 visitors of the Christmas Market. The assassin was able to escape at first. The terrorist organisation "Islamic State" (IS) published a report on its website on 20 December 2016 that the perpetrator had acted as a "soldier of the Islamic State". 24-year-old Amri was shot dead by a police patrol on 23 December 2016 during a routine check in Sesto San Giovanni, Italy.

Since then, we've all been looking for answers to the questions:

1. Could we have prevented these attacks?
2. How could it happen that vehicles were able to ram almost uninterrupted into a public event?
3. How can "soft targets" be protected?

So we launched the project “Protection of Public Spaces in Berlin” to generate solutions and to realize temporary and/or permanent blocking measures.

At first, we decided to carry out a pilot project on the Breitscheidplatz. Because this area is almost half of the year event-driven, we concluded that temporary measures are not useful and individual, location-adapted permanent measures are necessary. However, we had to put up with interim measures during the preliminary planning stages for permanent measures.

To develop effective and integrated security measures on the basis of a differentiated concept we have had to engage a hostile vehicle mitigation expert.

Currently we are constructing the permanent cityscape compatible access protection measures on the Breitscheidplatz. The arrangements include interoperable systems of barriers, bollards, elevated curbs, traffic facilities and a sculpture.

PPSN : What were the main structural / engineering / technical challenges you had to face?  

JR:

The Breitscheidplatz is a highly frequented public space with many different kinds of uses and a lot of abutting owners and other affected people with various interests and aesthetic imaginations. The church situated at the square is a protected historical monument. Different administrations in Berlin are responsible for different aspects in the management of the square. Besides that, the square is located between two busy roads with bus transportation services; some streets lead directly to the square. The Islamist terrorist attacked the Christmas Market on the Berlin Breitscheidplatz with a very heavy 40-ton truck loaded with steel parts - one of the heaviest trucks on European streets. Due to the physical laws enormous forces have to be absorbed.

The mitigation measures have to address all these challenges. Extensive coordination between the different stakeholders is needed.

The framework for the cooperation in Berlin is formed by the core statements:

1. Protective measures against attacks should be taken into account when planning public areas.
2. Protective measures against attacks are appropriate and practical.
3. Protective measures against attacks are compatible with the cityscape.
4. Protective measures against attacks strengthen the feeling of security.

All solutions aim at the following influencing variables:

• Minimization of the speed of attack vehicles,
• Reduction of the weight of vehicles,
• Influence on the potential angle of impact,
• Increase of the distance, and
• Avoidance of hitting relevant areas.

PPSN: There is always a balancing act between introducing security measures and keeping the beauty and feel-good factor of a public place. The strong protective measures introduced for the Christmas market in 2018 led to a criticism that the protective installations disturbed the feeling of warmth and communal pride associated with the Christmas market; the Berlin Kurier called the installation "Fort Glühwein". What is your take on this?

JR:

The reactions of residents and users of the Breitscheidplatz to the mobile protection measures, which were only planned as an interim solution, were very different. Some people praised the elevated protection of the square and felt a stronger sense of security, while others criticized the visual and aesthetic effect.

Berlin, as the capital city of Germany, is in special focus for Islamist terrorists. There is a consistently high danger primarily through Islamist terror. Public spaces and the people who are there must be protected. The interim re-deployable certified vehicle security barriers on Breitscheidplatz must protect the people until the permanent measures are constructed.

The experts on defense against hostile vehicle attacks gave us the feedback that the used temporary measures on the Christmas market are the best possible protection. But temporary measures can only achieve a similar level of protection to permanent barriers with a great deal of effort/cost, space requirements and aesthetic restrictions and are therefore suitable for areas that are to be protected for a short period of time or on an interim basis. In addition to the proven protective effect, permanent security measures should be visually more appealing and satisfy higher aesthetic demands.

Regardless, the Breitscheidplatz Christmas market in 2018 had more visitors than before and the majority of guests said that they felt safer than before.

PPSN: Did you find the necessary physical or technological protective solutions easily available on the market? Were the relevant certification procedures for protective solutions sufficient?

JR:

There is a large variety of suppliers who offer different systems to prevent hostile vehicle attacks. Not all of the systems offered on the market are certified. So it is essential to ask if the product is certified. If a product is not certified it should be excluded right away, because it is not certain if it works.

In my opinion the existing standards are not sufficient. For example, currently the certification process does not include different impact angles. So we launched a standardisation process in Germany to define new requirements for mobile vehicle barriers. And I know that the British colleagues are also working to renew the international standard ISO IWA 14-1/14-2.

We also launched a network in Germany to spread knowledge and information about procedures, physical or technological protective solutions on a local level.

First, however, is not the question of the protective solution, but the definition of the protection zone, the analysis of the risks, the definition of the protection objective as well as the consideration of possible effects on beneficiaries and on the environment. After all these considerations are carefully analysed, one can decide which protective system offers the most suitable solution.

PPSN: Have you had complications due to the lack of interoperability among different technological or physical protective products?

JR:

In our experience all technological and physical protective products have their advantages and disadvantages. One product is perfect for one area and the special features of the given location, but cannot be effective at another. As said before it is important that the effect of the protection system is proven.

Furthermore, it is essential to compare the results of the certification tests to the challenges. For example, there are certified products, which will only work at an impact angle of 90 degree and have a depth of penetration of over 60 metres. If other impact angles are possible at your location and you have a narrow space, this product is not the right solution.

There is no “golden way” or one product which fits in all places. We must apply adapted solutions with barrier systems adapted to the specific space.

PPSN: The protection of public spaces involves many different stakeholders – various authorities, citizens, private entities, certification bodies etc. Did you face challenges addressing the needs or recommendations of all stakeholders?

JR:

There is no easy way to satisfy the needs or recommendations of all parties involved. Above all, what is required are acceptable solutions, good arguments, political support and many conversations. I have come to realize that it is not possible to convince all stakeholders. Especially aesthetic and artistic questions are difficult to answer…

PPSN: Do you think that in the future, as artificial intelligence technologies are evolving, physical protection measures will become less needed or do you think that anyway, there is a limit to the potential of digital solutions?

JR:

If it is possible in the future to lock out attackers of defined spaces without locking up the audience, then this would be the solution.

In my opinion, it depends most of all on the progress of the technical evolution, the development of individual transport and the necessary delivery traffic in cities as well as the acceptance of the people.

PPSN: Where do you think cooperation at the EU level is most relevant in the protection of public spaces? What challenges could be better addressed at the European rather than at a local level?

JR:

All members of the EU are facing similar risks and challenges. Primarily the capital cities of the EU have to find answers for the threats. We are all searching for successful processes, best practices and realizable projects to meet the demands of the present and the future.

Together we can launch research projects, push standards, initiate legislative proposals and distribute knowledge all over the EU. I am convinced, that cooperation at the EU level is beneficial and necessary.