Czech flood and drought bill: ecologist Moravec's criticism

Ecologist Jan Moravec is criticising a law being prepared in Czechia to speed up strategic measures against water extremes, that is, floods and droughts. In his column, he calls a number of the bill's provisions controversial, and says some of them, in his view, contradict European law and even go beyond the constitution.

Biodiversity certificate in question

The law introduces a new instrument into Czech law: the “biodiversity certificate”. It is a list of protected species in the affected area that “freezes” the situation for the future: species not included in the certificate will not be taken into account when a building permit is issued. In the author's view, this creates a risk of deliberately wiping out populations of rare plants and animals simply because they were left off the list, by mistake or on purpose. For some species this also contradicts European legislation.

The certificates are to be prepared by an “environmental expert”, a university whose field the law does not specify. In theory, even a faculty of physical education and sport could qualify. The expert is to be appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture, although nature protection falls under the Ministry of the Environment. The Nature Conservation Agency, with its database of rare species, is left on the sidelines.

Everyone whose rights may be affected is obliged to cooperate with the expert, but nobody is required to inform these people that a certificate is being prepared. Environmental organisations will be able to propose additions to the document, but if a species is not added, they will have to pay the investor's or expert's costs, which the law does not define. The author calls this a parody of public participation.

Compulsory purchase and tight deadlines

The second controversial part concerns the expropriation of property. The bill eliminates the oral hearing, cuts the deadline for objections to one week, and shortens preliminary negotiations on sale or exchange to 30 days. Under the expropriation act it is 90 days, and under the “acceleration” act 60. The author sees this as pressure on owners to accept unfavourable terms.

Under the bill, the decision contains only an operative part and information on remedies, cannot be appealed and takes effect on the day it is issued. According to the author, this deprives it of justification and deprives owners of the right to appeal. The Nature Conservation Agency and national park administrations are excluded from granting exemptions for specially protected species; only the regions will decide. He considers the procedural deadlines unachievable, and if they are missed, a “fiction of consent” applies: the authority is deemed to have agreed.

The public is being pushed out of the process

Formally, associations keep the right to take part, but the conditions are tougher than in the new Building Act: 10 years of activity instead of three, 1,000 signatures instead of 200, and 3 days' notice of participation instead of 8. If several organisations apply, they must choose a common representative within 7 days; otherwise it will be the one that applied first. In the author's view, this makes it easier to “plant” a structure convenient to the investor.

There are oddities too: the investor, that is, the river basin enterprises, will be able to terminate land leases with a shortened notice period of six weeks. The author asks why such a short period is needed, and why dams need yet another special law when there is already the new Building Act and the “acceleration” act.

Read also: 9 лучших открытых бассейнов и купален Праги: где спастись от жары летом 2026 года

Source: ekolist.cz