The System Is not Working. Nevertheless, We Continue with it.
10 years since Huizinge
A year ago I started my PhD project at the Knowledge Platform. Our goal is to develop ways to restore trust and achieve reconciliation between the parties involved in Groningen, including residents, governments and industry. Much has happened in the past year around the gas extraction case. In this piece, I reflect on two important developments that I have been monitoring as a researcher: the Parliamentary Inquiry into Natural Gas Production Groningen and Respect for Groningen, the campaign month.
In response to the 10th anniversary of the Huizinge earthquake, the Groninger Bodem Beweging and the Groninger Gasberaad organized a campaign month with the support of SP parliament member Sandra Beckermann and Chris Garrit. The campaign month consisted of a series of theme meetings and a final debate in the city of Groningen. It resulted in a list of demands and a petition, which were presented the next day to State Secretary Vijlbrief.
The campaign month was a good opportunity to reflect in general on the Groningen case: what has changed in the last decade? What has gone well? What problems are lingering issues for those who are affected?
Over the last decade, a bureaucratic system has been set up - and constantly modified - to deal with damage settlement and the reinforcement operation. New regulations have been developed, new ministers have been appointed, and new cabinets have been elected.
Although much has changed, I see more continuity than change in Groningen. Simple damages are handled efficiently, but people with complex problems continue to wait years for clarity. There are still no clear solutions for self-employed people, SMB owners and farmers who are struggling with damage and reinforcement, as well as other related problems such as loss of income, manure pit problems and additional costs. Tenants are dependent on housing corporations that have completely different policies, which creates unequal treatment. This is a major problem throughout the whole case.
In Groningen, it seems as if responsibility has been arranged completely out of the system. The hearings of the Parliamentary Inquiry show that gas production in Groningen has become an enormously complex system. Many people play a role in it but no one has the final responsibility. Is it Kamp's fault that production was greatly increased in 2013, the year after Huizinge? Partially. Is it because of EZK officials who failed to pass on information? Is it because of Verhagen? Or to the gas building? As well. It is unclear who Groningers can hold liable for the aforementioned problems and whether the mistakes made can also have consequences for those involved within the Parliamentary Inquiry.
Another unwanted effect of the Inquiry is that executives, as well as others involved within the gas extraction issue, are reluctant to take action when they have to appear before the parliamentary committee. They often want to wait for the results of the Inquiry. This is understandable on the one hand, but if you look at the entire history of the case, you notice that passive and reactive actions of some executives in Groningen and elsewhere are typical.
What was striking during the campaign month was the changing of the guard among civil society organizations representing Groningen. Some spokespersons who used to speak to many media are largely out of the picture. A recognizable new spokesperson would be good for the Groningen case.
During the closing debate of the campaign month, Vijlbrief made a plea: there are many interests in turning on the gas tap, and the Secretary of State is under a lot of pressure. During closing remarks, Vijlbrief asked for the support of the Groningers and encouraged the Groningers to organize and make their voices heard. It is unclear how this can be done with much impact.
The campaign month culminated in a set of demands and a petition. The "Respect for Groningen" petition was signed thousands of times. The list of demands is short and to the point. This has the advantage that some demands are laid out concisely. However, it is necessary to further explain and elaborate on the demands. The campaign month and the Parliamentary Inquiry have perplexed me: how can so many things not have been properly resolved and organized in the Netherlands in the 10 years since Huizinge. If you let the stories of residents sink in, you can conclude that it is going to take some time before this system will provide solutions. But unfortunately, because the system is such a complex structure, it is also completely unclear how it could be rebuilt.
Agustín De Julio Pardo, PhD candidate