ABSTRACT
The alternative is the decentralized management of CIP issues in sector-specific Commission Directorates and working groups. Due to the stalled development of the ECI Directive, this mainly concerns energy and transport. As outlined above, the initial definition of guidelines for the identification of ECIs was supported by the integrated Commission Directorate for Energy and Transport (DG TREN). Yet as DG Energy and DG Move split after the Treaty of Lisbon, the divergent commitment and interest of bureaucratic actors became evident. DG Energy commissioned several external studies to buttress its in-house expertise on CIP22, whereas DG Move has undertaken further activities, which could also be explained by the absence of transport infrastructures on the first wave of designated ECIs (Booz & Company 2011). Meanwhile, the role of EU agencies in both energy and transport, such as the EU Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and EU Agency for the Regulation of Energy Markets (ACER), has yet to be defined for the purposes of CIP.23
