Thesis-Anne-Vos-Masters-SBR-and-EU-Law-3

safeguarding of the drinking water, which is of high importance due to the fact that this is
considered a national interest and an imperative reason of overriding public interest.
3. Furthermore, with regard to the participation principle, the involvement of the citizens should
truly be realised. When looking at the Recommendation, the aspect of the involvement of the
citizens when reviewing the Recommendation is especially important. With regard to the Draft
MSL, it should be pointed out that the submitted zienswijzen should really be addressed and not be
easily set aside. Shale gas extraction is a sensitive matter, which makes this even more important.
4. Next, the current Dutch regulation should be made more in line with the integration and
environmental principles. Especially with regard to the Mining act, environmental requirements
should be integrated. Currently, no environmental aspects can be considered here when deciding
on extraction or exploration permits. This stands in contrast with inter alia the Mining Waste
Directive which is considered as an actual environmental directive, while the Mining Act is more an
economical regulation.
5. Closely related to the prior recommendation (and the same principles referred there), it could
even be argued that, especially on the Dutch level, the current regulation covering shale gas
activities should be more centralised and clear. Currently it is very fragmentised and spread
over many regulations. The same could be said on the EU level. The Commission has just adopted
a recommendation which provides for an overarching framework, which can be welcomed.
However, this is not (formally) legally binding whereby parties are still dependent on the
fragmented legislation. More central regulation would prevent environmental gaps from occurring.
This (or at least the prior recommendation) should be (formally) adopted within a reasonable
amount of time, since it would be too late if environmental adverse effects would already occur.
6. Subsequently, from the integration principle it could also be read that the regulation on shale gas
in the Netherlands should not only be decided by the Minister of Economic Affairs, but should (at
least more explicit and clear) be co-decided and co-signed by the Minister of Infrastructure
and Environment. In this manner, the environmental requirements can really be taken into
account and a sincere balancing act can be carried out between the environmental and economic
aspects. This would also enhance public acceptance and integration, since this would assure
citizens that an actual balance has been made.
7. With regard to the environmental principles, it can be argued that several zones should be
excluded from shale gas activities. These include the 1000 metres zones, the bore free zones
and the zones appointed by the provinces. Currently, those zones are not excluded by the Draft
MSL. This is not in line with the environmental principles as set out above. The exclusion hereof
would be in line with the reasoning and ratio of the environmental principles and would moreover
lead to more public acceptance and trust.
8. Moreover, the Dutch government should decide on how to balance two national interests.
Currently this is not clear, while this can lead to very controversial decisions. Especially in the
current case, where the two national interests at stake are both important for different reasons, this
is debatable.
If all these recommendations do not seem possible, it could be wondered whether the exploration
and extraction of shale gas should then actually occur at all in the EU and the Netherlands.
Otherwise it would be accompanied by too many problems, concerns and insecurities for the
society and the environment.
102