-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Framework and background conditions
Political and institutional framework conditions at a European, base building region, national and local level give rise to a wide variety of opportunities and barriers to energy efficiency refurbishment of residential high-rise stock. The existing structures of government departments and their responsibilities, in particular whether the areas of housing, energy, regional development and the environment are integrated or coordinated, may be a significant indicator of the degree to which refurbishment objectives exist or can be successfully achieved. The table below lists the European housing ministries and which of the other areas energy, regional development and environment have been integrated or are covered by separate government departments . It is important to note that even nominally fully integrated ministries may still face internal difficulties in achieving sustainable refurbishment objectives.
Housing ministries and related responsibilities
|
Ministry responsible for housing
|
Energy
|
Regional development
|
Environment
|
|
Austria
|
Federal Ministry for Economy and Labour
|
√
|
Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Economy
|
Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Economy
|
|
Belgium
|
Ministry of Finance
|
Ministry for Economy, SMEs, Self-employed and Energy
|
devolved according to Belgium's federal structure
|
Ministry of Public Health, Food and the Environment
|
|
Bulgaria
|
Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works
|
Ministry of Energy and Energy Resources
|
√
|
Ministry of Environment and Water
|
|
Cyprus
|
Ministry of Interior
|
Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism
|
√
|
Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment
|
|
Czech Republic
|
Ministry for Regional Development
|
Ministry of Industry and Trade
|
√
|
Ministry of the Environment
|
|
Denmark
|
Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs
|
√
|
Ministry of the Interior and Health
|
Ministry of the Environment
|
|
Estonia
|
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications
|
√
|
√
|
Ministry of the Environment
|
|
Finland
|
Ministry of the Environment
|
Ministry of Trade and Industry
|
Ministry of the Interior
|
√
|
|
France
|
Ministry of Employment, Labour and Social Cohesion
|
Ministry of the Economy, Finance and Industry
|
Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport, Spatial Planning, Tourism and the Sea
|
Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development
|
|
Germany
|
Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing
|
Ministry of Economics and Labour
|
√
|
Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety
|
|
Greece
|
Ministry for the Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works
|
Ministry of Development
|
Ministry of the Interior, Public Administration and Decentralisation
|
√
|
|
Hungary
|
Ministry of Economy and Transport
|
Ministry of Economy and Transport
|
Ministry of Agriculture and Regional Development
|
Ministry of Environmental Protection
|
|
Ireland
|
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government
|
Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources
|
√
|
√
|
|
Italy
|
Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport
|
Ministry of Productive Activities
|
Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport
|
Ministry of the Environment
|
|
Latvia
|
Ministry of Economics
|
√
|
√
|
Ministry of Environment
|
|
Lithuania
|
Ministry of Environment
|
Ministry of Economy
|
Ministry of the Interior
|
√
|
|
Luxembourg
|
Ministry of the Interior
|
Ministry of Economy and Trade
|
√
|
Ministry of Environment
|
|
Malta
|
Ministry for the Family and Social Solidarity
|
Ministry for Resources and Infrastructure
|
√
|
Ministry for Rural Affairs and the Environment
|
|
Netherlands
|
Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment
|
Ministry of Economic Affairs
|
Ministry of Economic Affairs
|
√
|
|
Poland
|
Ministry of Infrastructure
|
Ministry of Economy and Labour
|
Ministry of Economy and Labour
|
Ministry of the Environment
|
|
Portugal
|
Ministry for Cities, Local Government, Housing and Regional Development
|
Ministry of Economy and Employment
|
√
|
Ministry of the Environment
|
|
Romania
|
Ministry of Transport, Constructions and Tourism
|
Ministry of Economy and Commerce
|
Ministry of Administration and Interior
|
Ministry of Environment and Waters Management
|
|
Slovakia
|
Ministry of Construction and Regional Development
|
Ministry of Economy
|
√
|
Ministry of Environment
|
|
Slovenia
|
Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning
|
Ministry of the Economy
|
Ministry of the Economy
|
√
|
|
Spain
|
Ministry of Housing
|
Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade
|
Ministry of Public Administration
|
Ministry of the Environment
|
|
Sweden
|
Ministry of Sustainable Development
|
√
|
Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communication
|
√
|
|
Turkey
|
Ministry of Public Works and Housing
|
Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources
|
Ministry of Interior
|
Ministry of Environment and Forestry
|
|
United Kingdom
|
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
|
Department of Trade and Industry
|
√
|
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
Closely related is the question over whether there exists the institutional intent and capacity necessary to achieve refurbishment objectives. Are procedures in place to collect, collate and interpret data on the housing stock, including the running of demonstration projects, dissemination of best practice knowledge, and setting of benchmarks or minimum standards for energy efficiency, products and workmanship?

Figure 1: Existing institutional data collection capacity (VROM commissioned survey)
Where such procedures exist – see Figure 1 – are high-rise buildings being distinguished or classed as a different category necessitating different approaches? Furthermore, do mechanisms exist to deliver new regulations and financial incentives? At a European level, there exist a number of demonstration and best practice programmes and resources on the refurbishment of high-rise or multi-family buildings, some of which focus especially, but not exclusively, on energy efficiency. The most important are OPET Building, SUREURO and LOCOSOC.
The degree of housing privatisation can be an important opportunity or barrier to refurbishment. Generally, public ownership would allow for a greater degree of control, making it easier to coordinate and carry out decisions on refurbishment, in particular with respect to the incorporation of energy efficiency measures.

Figure 2: Ownership of housing stock (VROM commissioned survey)
Given the rapid transformations in ownership structure and associated institutional change in particular in Eastern Europe – now with the lowest proportion of publicly owned stock as illustrated by Figure 2, in strong contrast to pre-1990 era – existing housing stock refurbishment strategies are unlikely to be very well suited to or experienced with the current situation. Strategies may have to be developed from scratch. Achieving the refurbishment of privately owned stock, especially privately let stock, may have to rely on greater economic incentives, and also relies on public money. It may also prove harder to achieve resident consensus. Public private partnership (PPP) approaches could hold much promise for refurbishment objectives, though experiences to date are thin on the ground as is knowledge of drawing up successful PPP contractual frameworks, particularly but not only in the new Member and Accession States.
Existing institutional practices may or may not prove conducive to the development of new policy instruments to promote energy efficiency investment. Standards of auditing procedures, transparency and formal accountability will affect the effectiveness of any instruments promoting energy conservation in high-rise buildings.
Membership of the EU can prove to be an obvious opportunity for energy efficiency in the refurbishment of high-rise buildings, entailing as it does the various financial and legal drivers and prospects.
Politics
Political processes and priorities will co-determine the willingness of governments to promote energy efficiency investment. There may for instance exist a stated preference or policy of demolishing existing high-rise buildings at the appropriate point in their lifetimes and pursuing a concurrent new build strategy. Indeed, many governments, especially in Western Europe, have regarded the construction of high-rise residential buildings as a mistake of housing policy. In the UK, for example, a large proportion of the high-rise stock has been torn down. This has been as much a result of poor construction quality as it has been of the pockets of social deprivation that developed on high-rise estates. Though the concept of high-rise living is experiencing a revival, not least due to the potential contribution to the high-density urban planning paradigm, this has mainly been in the form of new design and construction. Where the issue of embodied energy has not been incorporated into decision making over whether to refurbish or build anew, this may present a barrier, although the potential for reusing materials from buildings ear-marked for demolition must also be considered.
The definition of high-rise residential buildings defines the scale and the spatial distribution of the energy-saving potential to a large degree. The definition used by this report and others, more than four storeys high, results in a large and important but also highly diverse sector of the housing stock. Existing, country-specific definitions of high-rise stock may provide an opportunity for tailoring policy instruments more closely to regional needs.
Many policy options to promote investment in energy efficiency may prove politically difficult to bring in or be potentially unpopular, especially where compulsion or taxation is necessary. This barrier, in combination with elections or competing priorities, results in a compounded problem that may weaken the political resolve to bring in improvements. In this context, an important opportunity exists to make less popular policy options more acceptable by the public sector practicing what it preaches or leading by example.