How could industry and defense work collectively to enhance the security and protection of critical national undersea infrastructure?

Forcys has been involved in numerous discussions related to Critical National Undersea Infrastructure (CNUI), which result in the conclusion that maritime naval forces and security organisations are being expected to reorient to the new task and are looking for technology to provide quick-win solutions for delivery. But how is this additional activity funded and delivered? How could industry support the protection of their assets, from which they make substantial profit? 

The stark reality is that industry will only engage with the process when the operating risk becomes intolerable and/or the profitability of its business is not affected. To compel industry to pay for CNUI protection is not as simple as imposing a levy. A comprehensive approach that aligns financial incentives, regulatory frameworks, and collaboration between the private sector, governments, and naval forces is essential.

This article by Justin Hains, Business Development Manager, discusses the ‘top down’ approaches that could strengthen the security of CNUI and concludes with an initial step towards collective responsibility for security, irrespective of the countries involved.

Highlighting Financial Risks and Losses

Companies must recognize the significant financial risks of infrastructure failure, including disruptions from sabotage, natural disasters, or cyber attacks. Such incidents can lead to substantial downtime, revenue loss, and reputational damage. Potentially, investment in protection could lower insurance premiums, presenting a clear financial incentive to safeguard undersea infrastructure.

Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs)

Governments could encourage joint funding mechanisms, where both public and private sectors share the cost of protection. This could include subsidies or incentives for companies that invest in undersea security. A shared responsibility model motivates both sectors to contribute, minimizing the burden on individual entities.

Economic and Operational Benefits

Protection should be seen as a long-term investment. Preventing service interruptions and costly repairs reduces future expenditures, while avoiding fines for non-compliance or environmental damage. Secure infrastructure enhances reliability, operational efficiency, and could provide a competitive edge for companies prioritizing resilience.

Raising Awareness of Vulnerabilities

Increasing awareness about the growing risks—ranging from cyber attacks to physical sabotage—could spur companies into action. Sharing case studies of past incidents where undersea infrastructure was damaged can help highlight the serious consequences of neglecting protection.

Legislation and Regulation

Governments could implement mandatory security measures for critical infrastructure, with penalties for non-compliance. Additionally, tax incentives or credits can encourage voluntary investment in protection. A regulatory framework could ensure that companies take the necessary steps to safeguard their assets, viewing it as both a legal and financial obligation.

International Cooperation and IMO Framework

Under international law, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) grants nations exclusive rights over the seafloor within their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), where much of the critical infrastructure lies. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) provides a framework for the safety and security of maritime infrastructure. Governments can urge industry to cooperate in protecting these assets, noting that disruptions to infrastructure within the EEZ could have both national and international repercussions. Multinational agreements and IMO initiatives can help distribute the costs of protection.

Centralized Reporting and Monitoring Hub

A centralized hub would allow for real-time reporting, monitoring, and coordination among stakeholders. This system would integrate data from various sources—such as satellite surveillance, sensors on infrastructure, and environmental monitoring—to detect potential threats, enabling rapid responses, and inform stakeholders in a timely, accurate and coherent manner. The UK Maritime Trade Operations located in Dubai provides an example of such a response to piracy, armed robbery and potentially mining events, where the shipping industry and naval forces benefit from common situational awareness. A central platform for CNUI would allow quick incident reporting, ensuring coordinated responses from industry, government, and naval forces.

Data Sharing: Asset Location and Environmental Information

Companies should share location data of critical assets and environmental information. This allows authorities to better protect and respond to threats, especially in high-risk zones. Sharing environmental data (e.g., seismic activity or water currents) aids in preventing natural risks that could impact infrastructure. Additionally, sharing cyber security-related data helps protect against digital threats.

Legal and Regulatory Framework for Data Sharing

To encourage data sharing, clear legal frameworks must protect proprietary information while ensuring the sharing of necessary security and environmental data. Governments could offer liability protections for companies that share information in good faith, and establish data-sharing standards for consistency and security.

Conclusion

Key to the success of CNUI protection is the creation of a centralized reporting and monitoring hub, coupled with secure data sharing between industry, government, and naval forces. This could be the first step towards a holistic approach to protection of undersea infrastructure. Underpinned by international frameworks like UNCLOS and conforming to IMO guidelines, this approach offers stronger risk management, quicker response times, and greater resilience, ultimately encouraging industry to invest in the protection of critical infrastructure.