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

integrations, the best available knowledge and the precautionary principle). This concept (and its
impact assessment) could thus be seen as a confirmation of the considerations hereafter.
The first problem concerns the fragmented nature of shale gas regulation. Here come different
principles into play: the decentralisation, integration, precautionary and prevention principle. The
decentralisation principle would require the lower competent authorities to be involved at an earlier
stage, e.g. already when permitting the exploration and extraction licenses according to the Mining
Act. Currently, these lower authorities (especially the municipalities) are not involved in the Mining
Act. The inclusion of those lower authorities in the Mining Act would enhance coordination and will
also speed up the process. Second, the principle of integration requires environmental
requirements to be implemented in other fields. This requires the Mining Act to take account of
those requirements, which is currently not happening. This could enhance the currently existing
different assessment frameworks. Moreover, the environmental principles also contradict with the
currently fragmentised nature of the shale gas regulation. Fragmentised regulation could lead to
gaps, which can harm the environment. A more centralised, clear legislation could contribute
hereto. The environmental principles have in the past already been used as an argument to e.g.
adopt shale gas activities in the EIA directive.
The second problem which is very important for shale gas activities is the lack of public trust and
acceptance within the EU and the Netherlands. The principles of decentralisation, openness
(participation and transparency), integration, precautionary and prevention can be of help here.
The lack of transparency and public information is considered as one of the biggest challenges with
regard to shale gas. The first principle that could be helpful is the decentralisation principle. If lower
authorities (mainly the municipalities) would have more influence (e.g. already in the Mining Act as
stated before), citizens would have the feeling that their interests would be more and better
involved. This will lead to more acceptance. Currently, many citizens feel that the Minister of
Economic Affairs does only take national interests (such as the security of energy supply and
energy mix) into account, while not considering the local interests. Second, the principle of
openness could contribute to more public acceptance and trust. In accordance with the principle,
citizens should be more involved and should be allowed to see what the actual effects are of shale
gas activities, what chemicals are put into the ground (or not), etc. Knowing will give some peace
of mind. Third, the integration principle requires environmental requirements to be taken into
account in all policies. Currently, there is lack of such integration in the Dutch mining regulation.
This is shown by the Mining Act but also by the fact that only the Minister of Economic Affairs signs
the official documents of the parliament, without coordination with the Minister of Infrastructure and
Environment. It could lead to public acceptance if environmental aspects would (more clearly) be
taken into account. Currently it seems that economic reasons have the upper hand. Finally, the
environmental principles are of relevance. Here, the concept of sustainable development could
also be taken into account. Strict application of these principles can work as an assurance for
citizens that risks are strictly taken into consideration.
Third, the environmental concerns (in general) should be discussed, for which the transparency
principle, the integration principle and the environmental principles are relevant. Here another
problem – the protection of drinking water – can also be addressed. The same principles could
contribute to the resolving hereof. First, in order to contribute to environmental concerns (under
which the issue of drinking water) it is necessary that information is available, e.g. on possible
earthquakes, the pollution of ground and drinking water, the amount of water used, the emission of
greenhouse gas, air pollution, etc. Currently all this information is a bit vague and companies do
not publish this information. This is also a concern often heard in the US. This information should
be made public in order to deal with those concerns adequately. This is especially relevant for
drinking water companies. Those companies need to know what chemicals are used in the
fracturing fluid in order to safeguard the drinking water, especially since they are under a duty of
care. The necessity of providing safe and healthy drinking water is also apparent from it being a
99