In April 2021, after a contentious process, the Czech government presented a new version of its draft Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP), with significant changes relative to previously released drafts. Throughout the process, civil society actors have criticized the lack of opportunities for effective participation. Together with other available financial instruments, the RRP can principally be seen as a positive contribution to much-needed progress on the green transition in Czechia. Nevertheless, the government’s application of the climate tracking methodology does not always stand up to closer scrutiny, and the risk of a high carbon lock-in through investments in fossil gas projects remains a particular issue.
We find that Czechia’s draft recovery plan (RRP) achieves a green spending share of 22%, below the EU’s 37% benchmark. Furthermore, we find that 15% (€1.0bn) may have a positive or negative impact on the green transition depending on the implementation of the relevant measures, illustrating the importance of further scrutiny during the further planning, review and implementation of the recovery measures. According to the government, the plan’s climate spending share is 37% (see page 5 of the full country report for more details).
Our calculation of the green spending share aims to mirror the approach used for the official assessment of national recovery plans (find more information here).
*Our analysis covers the Recovery and Resilience Plan presented in April 2021. It was written by Tomáš Jungwirth and Jan Svoboda (AMO) and Felix Heilmann (E3G). We are grateful to David Nemecek (ISFC), Jan Skalik and Anna Karnikova (FoE CZ), Simon Batik (CDE) and Magdolna Prantner (Wuppertal Institute) for providing valuable inputs.
The Czech RRP allocates dedicated funding to important parts of the green transition, such as residential energy efficiency measures, biodiversity measures and climate adaptation. Nonetheless, the ultimate contribution of these measures will also depend on the specific targets and milestones that will be defined for their implementation, which have to be aligned with clear standards in order for the measures to make a very positive contribution.
There is no clear strategic vision guiding the use of the additional funding through the EU Recovery and Resilience Facility. With regards to the green transition, the RRP’s relevant components are not strongly linked to each other or to an overarching framework, and do not sufficiently take EU-level dynamics regarding the implementation of the European Green Deal into account.
Earlier drafts of the recovery plan included funding for the regeneration and use of brownfields, which would have made an important contribution to the green transition by increasing their adaptive capacity and allowing for the development of renewable energy projects, and local railways. These measures were no longer included in the latest draft.