As the Flemish government scales back the MijnVerbouwPremie—a key subsidy helping households invest in renovation and energy efficiency—the renovation obligation itself remains firmly in place. The result? Continued pressure on citizens, while part of the financial support disappears. Flemish households are left caught between obligation and feasibility. There has never been a better moment to stop treating policy as a “strict housefather” and start making it work more like an ecosystem.
According to the Central Economic Council of Belgium, three out of four households will not be able to make their home sufficiently energy-efficient within five years. This is not only due to high renovation costs, but above all because of a policy approach that relies too heavily on subsidies and top-down rules. It insufficiently reflects the reality of citizens: not every family lives in the same type of house, has the same income, or the same capacity to invest.
Policy Uncertainty Undermines Investment
Today, government policy not only dictates what must be done and how, but also changes course along the way. This creates frustration and uncertainty. Households that invest in renovation projects with a payback period of fifteen years have no guarantee that the rules will still apply next year. This lack of predictability discourages long-term investment and slows down the energy transition.
A Different Governance Culture
So what could be done differently?
The key lies in adopting a different governance culture for complex challenges such as climate adaptation. This is a problem that can only be tackled collectively—by citizens, companies and governments together. That requires policy that gives oxygen to private initiative and places trust in ecosystems of citizens, businesses and intermediaries.
A paternalistic approach does exactly the opposite—and it doesn’t work. Each year, Flanders achieves only about one third of its renovation target.
Effective policy sets out a clear and ambitious framework, while mobilising citizens and entrepreneurs to take action within it. That framework must be realistic for those who are expected to implement it and leave enough room to make the right investments. When desirable behaviour is encouraged, the market can do what it does best: scaling up effective solutions—without relying on public funds.
Nudging Instead of Overregulation
Does this mean government should step back entirely? Absolutely not. Without intervention, the market alone will not solve these challenges either. Government has an essential role to play: ensuring a level playing field, being firm about what is no longer acceptable (such as heating with fuel oil), while allowing room for customisation.
Too much control slows progress. Real progress comes from listening to what people need and allowing multiple pathways to the same goal—in this case, energy-efficient housing for everyone. This requires a shift from a controlling role towards softer forms of steering and nudging.
From Obligations to Collaboration
The current tension between increasing obligations and decreasing support shows clearly that Flanders needs a different approach. Not more rules, but more collaboration within a clear framework.
This is where ecosystem thinking comes in. Complex challenges require collective action. When citizens, companies, governments and knowledge institutions pool their expertise and resources, solutions emerge that better match real-world needs.
The FOSSTER project is a strong example. It brings together citizens, local contractors, governments and intermediaries such as the Energy Houses (Energiehuizen) to make renovation simpler and more feasible. These Energy Houses offer homeowners practical advice, access to reliable contractors and innovative financing solutions. By bundling knowledge and resources, they reduce fragmentation and increase clarity.
If this approach were applied more broadly, Flanders would come much closer to its energy and climate goals—not by controlling more, but by connecting better.
