Condominiums and housing cooperatives
Ministry of National Development
HOAs, construction companies, energy auditors
~€28.6 million (10 billion HUF)
EU funds (KEHOP) and national funding
Multifamily apartment buildings
Renovation packages corresponding with different levels of subsidy intensity:
The goal was to increase the energy classification of the participating buildings by two categories.
After agreeing on the intention to participate at their general assembly with a simple majority (in the case of condominiums) of the votes or 50%+1 of all the owners (in the case of housing cooperatives), the homeowners’ associations submitted the application documentation to the central electronic system. The decision was made by the Ministry and in case of a successful application, a grant contract was signed by the Ministry and the applicant.
One of the sub-programmes of The Warmth of Home is often called Panelprogram III., as it targeted MFABs similarly to the grant schemes of 2001-2009. The new funding was available for buildings built with both traditional and industrialised technology. Unlike the schemes before 2010, this grant required the applicants to choose from certain renovation packages corresponding with different levels of intensity. Those who applied for a more costly package (e.g. renewables) had to guarantee a certain level of energy saving, but got a higher level of subsidy up to 50%. Together with the 2001-2009 scheme around 23% of flats in buildings built with industrial technology in Budapest were renovated.
It is hard to highlight any concrete practices as the programme did not contain any well-known pilot projects. As it was a centralised programme, which ran out of funding very soon, the beneficiaries are dispersed across the country; we do not know about particular cities or areas with outstanding performance.
The programme was not socially targeted and it excluded buildings with vulnerable or low-income communities due to the requirement of own contribution and postfinancing. Due to the small budget and the fact that it was a first-come, first-served scheme, buildings with an efficient management and a strong business network had much higher chances to participate, and made it almost impossible for less organised and marginalised buildings to apply.
We do not have any information about the government’s plans regarding the European Resilience and Recovery Mechanism; however, a better targeted and more reliable version of this grant scheme would be a useful and logical way of using the EU funds. The most important ways to improve the programme would be:
We invite you to fill in the form to receive news and updates about ComAct in your inbox, not more than twice a year.
Please note all fields are compulsory.