Střety zájmů při ochraně biodiverzity a klimatu

projects assessed, the description of climate conditions was generic and formalistic. Basic meteorological data (e.g., average temperature or precipitation) were typically included. However, forward-looking assessments of climate risks, including droughts, temperature extremes, and water stress, were consistently absent. Emissions of CO₂, CH₄, and N₂O were rarely quantified. Methane and nitrous oxide were systematically disregarded in the EIA process, despite being key agricultural emissions. Instead, the documentation focused primarily on ammonia and odour, reflecting a narrow hygienic and localised perspective. Life-cycle emissions and indirect impacts were excluded altogether. Future projections were static, with projects assuming unchanged conditions over periods of 30–50 years. Adaptation risks, such as water scarcity, feed availability, or heat extremes, were not considered. A notable illustration of conceptual misunderstanding appeared in one case, where the documentation stated: “ The proposed project will have no impact on climate change, such as droughts, floods, or rising temperatures .” 35 This reflects a fundamental confusion between mitigation and adaptation: the purpose of adaptation assessment is to examine how climate change may affect the project, not how the project affects climate change. References to climate policy objectives at EU or national level were either omitted entirely or mentioned only superficially, without assessing consistency with emission targets or adaptation strategies. Climate was not treated as a substantive public interest. Instead, justifications frequently downplayed responsibility (e.g. “if not here, then elsewhere” ) 36 , and final EIA reports gave priority to hygiene, odour, and local environmental burdens, while climate considerations were ignored. 7. Conclusion This paper set out to examine two research questions: whether climate-oriented EIA can serve as a substantive tool for integrating climate considerations into administrative decision-making, and to what extent competent authorities implement the legal requirements concerning climate assessment, particularly in intensive livestock projects. The findings indicate that, at present, climate-oriented EIA functions largely as a procedural formality rather than as a meaningful mechanism of climate governance. Although the legal framework requires the assessment of both mitigation and adaptation, systematic deficiencies persist. First, GHG emissions are rarely quantified and are frequently dismissed as negligible without supporting data. Second, adaptation is either overlooked or misconceived, with assessments conflating it with mitigation or interpreting it incorrectly as the project’s impact on climate change rather than the reverse. None of the analysed projects attempted to assess vulnerability to future climate 35 CENIA. EIA Information System – JHM1583 [online]. Available at: https://portal.cenia.cz/eiasea/detail/ EIA_STC2359?lang=cs [accessed 29 July 2025] 36 Ibidem.

147