According to the advisory council, the Groninger field is isolated, and mining activities do not cause earthquakes or soil movements to a large extent in other places.
“In cases where soil movement leads to damage in the Netherlands, this usually has a cause other than mining activities. The damage is often related to the conditions in the building and the foundation,” the Council of State states. The Council therefore expects that changes to the system will not lead to more compensation payments, because mining companies can demonstrate that there are other causes.
By introducing the reverse burden of proof, the impression is created that mining activities generally cause damage. Unjustified, according to the Council of State. “The risk is therefore that the expansion (of reverse burden of proof, ed.) will mainly result in disappointment among citizens who report damage as a result of incorrect or unrealistic expectations.”
One of the arguments for introducing the reverse burden of proof more widely is that the procedure surrounding the burden of proof is lightened for people who have suffered damage. The Council of State does not consider this a legitimate reason and points out that the Mining Damage Commission has already been set up to assist people. That committee focuses mainly on damage to small gas fields and is not in favor of the reverse burden of proof.
It is now up to the cabinet whether it will go along with the advice of the Council of State or whether it will focus on expanding the reverse burden of proof.