Critical Infrastructures: What Makes an Infrastructure Critical?

Publication Date: January 2003

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Economics; Government

Type:

Abstract:

The Bush Administration's proposal for establishing a Department of Homeland Security includes a function whose responsibilities include the coordination of policies and actions to protect the nation's critical infrastructure. However, the proposal did not specify criteria for how to determine criticality or which infrastructures should be considered critical.

Over the last few years, a number of documents concerned with critical infrastructure protection have offered general definitions for critical infrastructures and have provided short lists of which infrastructures should be included. None of these lists or definitions would be considered definitive. The criteria for determining what might be a critical infrastructure, and which infrastructures thus qualify, have expanded over time. Critical infrastructures were originally considered to be those whose prolonged disruptions could cause significant military and economic dislocation. Critical infrastructures now include national monuments (e.g. Washington Monument), where an attack might cause a large loss of life or adversely affect the nation's morale. They also include the chemical industry. While there may be some debate about why the chemical industry was not on earlier lists that considered only military and economic security, it seems to be included now primarily because individual chemical plants could be sources of materials that could be used for a weapon of mass destruction, or whose operations could be disrupted in a way that would significantly threaten the safety of surrounding communities.

A fluid definition of what constitutes a critical infrastructure could complicate policymaking and actions. At the very least, a growing list of infrastructures in need of protection will require the federal government to prioritize its efforts. Essentially the federal government will have to try to minimize the impact on the nation's critical infrastructure of any future terrorist attack, taking into account what those impacts might be and the likelihood of their occurring.

There are number of ways the government can prioritize. First, not all elements of a critical infrastructure are critical. Additional study will be necessary to identify those elements that are the most critical. Other approaches include focusing on vulnerabilities that cut across more than one infrastructure, interdependencies where the attack on one infrastructure can have adverse effects on others, geographic locations where a number of critical infrastructure assets may be located, or focusing on those infrastructure belonging solely to the federal government or on which the federal government depends.

The National Strategy for Homeland Security, released by the Bush Administration in July 2002, states that the federal government will set priorities for critical infrastructure protection based on a consistent methodology and an approach that will allow it to balance the cost and expected benefits. It does not discuss what that methodology or approach might be. Congress may want to focus some of its oversight on how the Administration proposes to set priorities and what criteria it uses to do so. This report will be updated as warranted.