Towards a Baltic Sea Region Strategy in Critical ... - Helsinki.fi

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION IN THE BALTIC SEA REGION
Green Paper options
The EPCIP Green Paper (Commission 2005b) was a rather open and democratic
process (although a rather hasty one), as it was produced in order to encourage
discussion on the issues among all interested parties and stakeholders, such as
Member States, owners and operators of infrastructures, and professional
associations. It also seemed, at least formally, to open most, if not all, of the issues
at stake to a genuine choice between the possible policy alternatives, such as that
between the terrorism-as-priority approach vs. all-hazards approach discussed
above.
The Green Paper proposed that EPCIP framework could function on a
voluntary or mandatory basis. However, it clearly took the party of the latter in
stating that only a legal framework would ensure a consistent and homogeneous
implementation of CIP measures and establish clear responsibilities between the
Member States and the Commission. Therefore a voluntary approach is in a sense
already precluded in the Commission Green Paper.
The main goal in EPCIP is foremost to unify the definition of CIP by creating
a common list of CI sectors, harmonize the system of the CIP in each country,
ensure the protection on adequate and equal levels, avoid any negative crossborder
effects the disruption or destruction of infrastructure in one Member State
might have, and ensure that the rules of competition are not distorted within the
EU internal market. This would be realized by constant monitoring and control. In
addition to already existing sector specific approaches, EPCIP would offer a
horizontal dimension to complement the sector-based approach. The methods used
would be exchanging best practices and compliance monitoring mechanisms as
well as setting common objectives, standards, codes and methodologies.
In defining CI the Green Paper proposed methods to separate national critical
infrastructures (NCI or CI) from European critical infrastructures (ECI) by
determining their cross border effect. The existing bilateral CIP cooperation would
be complementary to the EPCIP and the ECI could be seen as involving either two
or more Member States including relevant bilateral CI, or three or more Member
States excluding all bilateral CI. This definition would be done on a sector-specific
basis together with the Member States taking account of any potential security
gaps or interdependencies. However it is stated in the Green Paper that identifying
any infrastructure as ECI would not require any additional protection measures but
instead solely bilateral agreements could exclude the Community. CI originating
outside EU should also be taken into consideration – although the Green Paper
does not elaborate this issue – as well as the interdependencies between the ECI.
Regarding the national CI the Green Paper saw a common European
framework of protection as being particularly useful, since nowadays the majority
of companies operate across borders. EPCIP would not only simplify matter for
companies but also avoid them from additional costs. Here the Commission
proposes the following alternatives: to integrate NCI fully within EPCIP; to leave
NCI outside the scope of EPCIP; or to leave it fully up to Member States to decide
whether to use parts of EPCIP in relation to NCI. In addition the Green Paper
suggested either to have a single overseeing body or a national point of contact
dealing with the implementation of EPCIP but leaves this issue open for discussion
among the stakeholders.
40 NORDREGIO REPORT 2007:5