High-Rise project >> Finding a Way Forward > Opportunities and barriers >

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.

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.