State of the Art â Country Profile GERMANY

CONCERTED ACTION ON BROWNFIELD AND ECONOMIC 

REGENERATION NETWORK 

State of the Art – Country Profile 

GERMANY 

INTRODUCTION 

This country profile was produces as a part of a study commissioned by English Partnerships 

(EP) at the request of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) to review current 

Brownfield policies and practices in Europe. The study was conducted by Parkman 

Environment, together with Sheffield Hallam University, Judith Lowe (an independent 

consultant) and the University of Nottingham. 

CABERNET Members played a major role in providing country specific information for this study 

through responses to questionnaires and interviews. Collation of the information was coordinated 

by the EP/ODPM Study Research Group, lead by Judith Lowe. As a result of the 

substantially involvement of Network in the study and to ensure that the information remains 

relevant, CABERNET Members will periodically update the ‘State of the Art – Country Profile’ 

Information Sheets and use these as a Network resource. 

If you would like to comment on this State of the Art – Country Profile or contribute information, 

please contact the CABERNET Office. 

STATE OF THE ART - GERMANY 

1 CONTEXT 

1.1 Definition 

Innerstädtische Brachflächen (innercity building areas not under use today) & Innerstädtische 

Entwicklungs und Sanierungsgebiete (innercity areas for redevelopment and refurbishment). 

Definition of the ITVA for the process of “Flächenrecycling”: [to be translated from 

German] 

Also ‘urban renewal area’ – lack of property usage of urban land etc. defined in the part 

‘town planning law’ of the Baugesetzbuch (BGB) – German official construction code 

1.2 Policy focus 

“In Germany, there is an increasing awareness about the wider brownfields issues. 

These are frequently discussed as an essential element of contaminated land 

management. In the last 10 years considerable efforts have been made to solve the 

environmental problems arising from contaminated sites and a high scientific and 

technological standard has been achieved in this field. However, the task of revitalising 

derelict land and of developing effective concepts for bringing the land back into 

economic use still is a primary task for the future. 

The presence of brownfields hamper the economic development in the affected regions 

as its negative appearance and the risks associated with the environmental hazards are 

STATE OF THE ART 1 st Edition – APRIL 2003 Page 1 

GERMANY

major obstacles for investment. However, at the same time land consumption is 

increasing and is presently at a rate of 129 hectares per day. This area of land is sealed 

every day for building purposes. This indicates that there is competition between 

greenfields and brownfields with respect to attraction of investors for the development of 

land. 

Since the reunification specific brownfield problems emerged in the new German states. High 

greenfield consumption with tax incentives met the decline of industry and military conversion. 

The high stock of brownfields - e.g. 18.000 ha in Saxony became a major handicap for the 

urban and economic restructuration. In 2001, the State of Saxony started with a new integrated 

and interdepartmental brownfield redevelopment program funded by the European Regional 

Development Fund (ERDF) of the European Commission. 

In 1998, the Federal Ministry for the Environment in Germany published the Draft 

Environmental Programme and set the following objectives for brownfield 

redevelopment: 

• rehabilitation of industrial sites and elimination of hazards to human beings and the 

environment; 

• reintegration of rehabilitated sites into the economic cycle; 

• reduction of land consumption from 120 hectares per day (status 1998) to 30 hectares per 

day by 2020.” 

There is no specific brownfield targeted regulation. But the Federal Planning and 

Building Act requires land saving planning approaches. There are links to ‘greenfield’ 

policies as it is hard to get building permissions on Greenfield; land use plans; local and 

regional development plans where greenfields get protected. There are current 

approaches on the Federal level to build up a brownfield network and Governmental 

Programmes in some states (eg Baden Wuerttemburg) in order to promote land 

management and land recycling. 

2 BACKGROUND 

2.1 Types of Site 

Presently there are about 362.000 suspected contaminated sites nation-wide. The total 

resource of brownfields is projected to be 128,000 hectares across the country. 

2.2 Administrative Responsibilities 

Various Land and regional agencies have developed brownfield initiatives. 

centralised organisation in Germany. 

No 

National level: Federal Ministry for the Environment sets objectives in 1998; 

Ministry of Planning, Construction 

Land level: 

Ministries of environment, economy, urbanism 

Regional level: Bezirksregierung (regional government) 

Local level: Municipality (administration: city developing & planning, 

structural and civil engineering, environment etc.) 

2.3 Market 

Respondents were divided in their views as to whether brownfield regeneration is mainly 

achieved through direct intervention or through the planning and development process. 



In some cases, the Federal Government (national development agencies) takes over 

contaminated sites for developments. 

Mixed use is a goal of German town/city planning. Underlying purpose for type of reuse: 

“Unemployment (and tax income increases for the communities) are the most 

used argument for redeveloping commercial property; housing where it is 

appropriate” 

“It depends on the local market, surroundings and previous structure or usage.” 

“.... there ought to be several uses ...” 

“Relates to the specific market conditions, housing development still prefers 

suburban areas where there is land available. Employment uses are dominant in 

traditional industrial regions, commercial uses are paying high prices if planning 

permission is given.” 

“There is a lot of empty housing in the inner cities which means shrinking areas.” 

“The residual land value is the key.” 

3 INSTRUMENTS 

3.1 Financial 

“In Germany it is too complicated to describe briefly ..............” 

“Very complicated, a huge amount of time and paper is normally involved in such 

processes.” 

Different funding programmes in each Land, with financial help from EU. 

There is an Urban Development Support Programme (Federal and state funding for city 

development) 

“Usually the public side is owner of the site and by selling the land cheaper or by 

adding value to the development by developing parts of the site themselves.” 

“The district authorities must apply to the State and Federal (and EU) 

governments for grant support.” 

“Usually through economic promotion as the driver rather than for redevelopment 

of brownfield land.” 

“PPP-model, organised in a public / private project development corporation” PPP 

model 10-20% of the costs borne by the investor/developer/owner and 80-90% by 

the Lander/EU 

Basic Law, Article 104a [Apportionment of expenditures between the Federation and the 

Länder] 

The German Federal government, the federal states and local authorities co-finance 

redevelopment, with the objective of triggering private sector investment. The main source of 

funds is the urban development assistance provided for in the Basic Law (Article 104a), which 

can include: 

• preparing land for redevelopment; 



• carrying out of planning measures, including the provision of compensation; 

• carrying out of building measures; 

• the implementation of social plans; and 

• the realisation of repair and modernisation measures. 

Financial aid is provided by the Federal government to the Länder and then on to the local 

authorities to promote urban development projects in individual areas. The funds are paid 

according to a specific distribution key agreed between the Federal government and the Länder. 

The Federation and the Länder shall separately finance the expenditures resulting from the 

discharge of their respective responsibilities insofar as this Basic Law does not otherwise 

provide. 

Where the Länder act on federal commission, the Federation shall finance the resulting 

expenditures. 

Federal laws providing for money grants to be administered by the Länder may provide that the 

Federation shall pay for such grants wholly or in part. If any such law provides that the 

Federation shall finance one half or more of the expenditure, it shall be executed by the Länder 

on federal commission. If any such law provides that the Länder shall finance one quarter or 

more of the expenditure, it shall require the consent of the Bundesrat. 

The Federation may grant the Länder financial assistance for particularly important investments 

by the Länder or by municipalities (associations of municipalities), provided that such 

investments are necessary to avert a disturbance of the overall economic equilibrium, to 

equalize differing economic capacities within the federal territory, or to promote economic 

growth. Details, especially with respect to the kinds of investments to be promoted, shall be 

regulated by a federal law requiring the consent of the Bundesrat or by executive agreements 

under the Federal Budget Law. 

The Federation and the Länder shall finance the administrative expenditures incurred by their 

respective authorities and shall be responsible to one another for ensuring proper 

administration. Details shall be regulated by a federal law requiring the consent of the 

Bundesrat. 

“Various development agencies have developed regional brownfield initiatives in the 

Federal states, eg: 

In Westphalia a Property Fund was established in 1982 

”Landesentwicklungsgesellschaft Nordrhein-Westfalen” (LEG,1999): 

By establishing a Property Fund in 1982 the region has made the redevelopment of 

brownfield sites and disused buildings central to its policy of creating an integrated 

urban development model. The activities of the Property Fund go beyond the 

establishment of new attractive business parks. They include: 

• the accumulation of wide experience in the economic framework and prudent dealing 

with contaminated and derelict sites; 

• placing quality targets in urban construction before purely economic considerations, 

whether it is the architectural plans for the commercial building itself, or surrounding 

landscaping and recreational areas and facilities; 

• preserving industrial architecture which had been abandoned and which bears witness 

to the history of the industrialisation which was so important to this state; 



• safeguarding monuments such as the coalmine Zollverein XII in Essen or the Landscape 

Park in North Duisburg, which are now becoming new tourist and cultural attractions 

within the Ruhr area. 

To date 2.400 hectares in 178 locations have been purchased. Of these, 971 hectares 

have so far been rehabilitated, developed and placed on the market. 61% of the 

developed business sites have been sold. This is a significant success given that there 

are many other sites available on market. A lot of hard work is currently being 

undertaken on a further 514 hectares in order to place them on the market within another 

two to three years. This applies particularly to the projects for the International Building 

Exhibition (IBA) at Emscher Park. The exhibition was completed in 1999. The IBA aimed 

to provide overall impulses for the ecological, economic and social restructuration by 

providing new landscape schemes, brownfield reconversion e.g. for technology centres 

and innovative housing schemes.” 

European urban renewal funding (URBAN) & ERDF have been used 

Tax policies may come into play, but one respondent suggested that these still promote 

Greenfield development. 

3.2 Land Use and Development Control 

Federal Building Code 1 

In the German legal system, urban regeneration and redevelopment are regulated by Sections 

136ff and 165ff of the Federal Building Code. It is here that the tool of urban “Development 

measures” and “Redevelopment measures” is available. The purpose of development and 

redevelopment measures is both to develop large areas of previously undeveloped land and to 

regenerate brownfield sites and to find new uses for areas that are underused or inappropriately 

used. 

“Development measures” directly pursue urban development objectives. They are designed to 

be used to develop neighbourhoods or other parts of the municipality for the first time or to 

redevelop them as part of urban development reorganization. 

The law relating to urban redevelopment (Section 136ff of the Federal Building Code) provides 

German municipalities with an opportunity to implement a methodical and coordinated process 

of regeneration in areas with an especially great need for action, within the framework of an 

overall urban development measure. The redevelopment is designed to remedy urban 

development shortcomings in a specific area. Such shortcomings are deemed to exist, for 

instance, if an area does not meet the general requirements for healthy living and working 

conditions or the safety of residents or employees. Functional weaknesses (including a lack of 

green spaces or public amenities) can also cause such shortcomings. 

Section 165, para. 3, first sentence, no. 1 of the Federal Building Code states that an urban 

development measure may only be implemented if the aims of the measure cannot be achieved 

through the use of urban development contracts or if the owners are not prepared to sell the plot 

in question at a price that does not take into account the increases in value resulting from 

development. Municipalities have the option, for instance, of entrusting the construction or 

modification of public amenities or consequential developments to the respective owner on the 

1 

From German comments on the Community framework on state aids in the field of physical regeneration proposed by 

the United Kingdom, March 2002. 



asis of a contract. Development law in Germany thus also makes it possible to implement 

public private partnerships (PPP). 

In detail, the following objectives are pursued with the “Development measure” tool: 

• creation of (reasonably priced) housing land; 

• increasing the number of jobs available; 

• increasing the amount of land available for services and retail outlets; 

• construction of public amenities; 

• integration of land into the physical environment. 

The distinctive features of urban “Development measures” regulated in the Federal Building 

Code are to be found in: 

• the obligation of local authorities to purchase land and reprivatize it, 

• the associated siphoning-off of the rises in land value to fund the measure and 

• the special reserved rights under development law to require building permission. 

• 

All measures must be taken in the interests of public welfare. 

The Federal Building Code Section 146, para. 3 states that the municipality may by contract 

entrust the implementation of the infrastructural and constructional measures and the 

construction of and changes to public amenities and consequential developments either wholly 

or in part to the property owner. In other words, redevelopment measures can also be carried 

out in a PPP arrangement. 

Städtebauförderung (no details) 

3.3 Environmental Controls 

Federal Soil Protection Act 1998 (in force 1 March 1999) - Main Provisions 

Prior to the Act coming into force the remediation of contaminated land was previously 

regulated at state level. 

Contaminated sites are defined by the Act as being; 

• closed down waste management installations, and other real properties, in/on which 

waste has been treated, stored or landfilled 

• real properties that house closed-down installations, and other real properties on which 

environmentally harmful substances have been handled, except for installations that can 

be closed down only under a license pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act that cause 

harmful soil changes or other hazards for individuals or the general public 

The new Act provides uniform requirements for the protection of soil and the remediation of 

contaminated sites. It is based on strict liability with the property owner and the occupier of the 

property being obliged to take measures to prevent harmful soil changes originating from their 

property. The party who damaged the soil or contaminated the site, and his universal 

successor, as well as the relevant property owner and the occupant of the property are obliged 

to remediate the soil and contaminated areas including ground and surface water. The cost of 

such remediation is to be borne by the parties obliged to carry out such measures. 



The former owner of the property is obliged to carry out the remediation if he transferred his 

property after 1 March 1999 and if he was aware of, or should have been aware of, the relevant 

harmful soil change or contamination. 

The Act does however provide a right of compensation or contribution from other liable parties. 

There are few defences; only innocent ownership (for past, but not current, owners) 

Fines for breaching the statutory regulations and enforcement notices are up to DM 100,000. 

Federal Protection of Soil Act - Article 25, Value Compensation 

Article 25, value compensation provides:- 

If the market value of a site is increased, not solely insignificantly, through use of public funds in 

measures for fulfilment of obligations pursuant to Article 4, and if the owner has not borne the 

relevant costs, or has not borne such costs completely, the owner has to pay a value 

equalization, to be determined by the competent authority, in the amount of the value increase 

resulting from the relevant measure, to the public agency responsible for the relevant financing. 

The amount of such value compensation shall be no larger than the amount of the public funds 

used. There shall be no obligation to provide value equalization if, with respect to harmful soil 

changes or contaminated sites present on a site, exemption from responsibility or from the 

obligation to pay costs pursuant to Section 1 Article 4 (3) first sentence of the Environmental 

Framework Act (Umweltrahmengesetz) of 29 June 1990 (Federal Law Gazette I No. 42 p. 649), 

last amended by Article 12 of the Act of 22 March 1991 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 766), in the 

relevant applicable version in each case, has been provided. Where measures within the 

meaning of the first sentence of this paragraph have been carried out by a community in 

formally defined remediation areas or development areas, as administrative measures, the 

relevant increase of the market value shall be covered within the framework of the 

compensation amount pursuant to Article 154 of the Building Code. 

The increase of the market value of a site resulting from rehabilitation measures shall consist of 

the difference between the value the piece of land would have had if the measures had not 

been carried out (initial value) and the market value of the piece of land following execution of 

the exploration and remediation measures (final value). 

The compensation payment shall become due when the securing or remediation has been 

completed and the amount of the payment has been determined by the competent authority. 

The obligation to provide value compensation shall expire if the relevant amount has not been 

determined by the end of the fourth year following the completion of the securing or 

remediation. 

The competent authority shall subtract from the value compensation pursuant to (1) those 

expenses that the owner has paid for his own measures for securing or remediation, or for 

acquisition of the site, in the justified confidence that no harmful soil changes or site 

contamination would be present. If the owner is able to require compensation from third parties, 

this shall be taken into account in the decision pursuant to the first sentence of this paragraph. 

In individual cases, a partial or complete exception can be made from the requirement for an 

compensation payment, if this is in the public interest or is needed to prevent unjust hardship. If 

costs for securing or remediation are reimbursed to the public agency responsible for the 

relevant financing, then such payment must be appropriately acknowledged in that no 

compensation payment is required, a determined compensation payment is waived or a paid 

compensation payment is reimbursed. 



The compensation payment amount shall encumber the site as a public encumbrance. The 

Federal Ministry of Justice shall be authorised to determine, by means of a statutory ordinance 

and with the consent of the Bundesrat, the manner and means by which attention is to be 

called, in the land register (Grundbuch), to the presence of such public encumbrances. 

4 OTHER INFLUENCES 

In May 2002 a two day conference concerning sustainable management was held in Berlin. 

The Federal Environment Ministry and the Federation of German Industries (BDI) invited 

representatives from business, politics and science to discuss a possible contribution from 

industry for environmentally sound and sustainable development. 

Minister Trittin emphasized that a basic ecological financial reform must also create far-reaching 

financial incentives for green production and consumption patterns. "This is also about 

dismantling subsidies that are ecologically counterproductive and of which we have a plethora 

in German taxation and fiscal law - not only in the hard coal industry and in agriculture." Minister 

Trittin sees great opportunities in a reorganization of construction assistance. At the moment, 

double the amount of home ownership assistance is given when purchasing a new house as 

compared to the acquisition of an older home. This means that newly built detached and semidetached 

houses requiring the largest amount of land, by comparison, are given preference 

over the reuse of existing real property. "We should not give additional state incentives to shift 

employment and housing to greenfield sites," stated Minister Trittin. 2 

5 TECHNICAL APPROACHES AND TOOLS 

Depends on who is doing the work. Replacement and sealing of the soil. Secure landfill, 

deposit on the site itself, also external treatment. 

6 OBSTACLES AND GAPS 

• “Location of business and industry on greenfield sites is easier, cheaper and faster than on 

brownfield sites, thus more attractive to stimulate investments 

• High legal, environmental and financial risks for investors 

• Lack of integration of environmental and spatial planning policy and procedures 

• Insufficient awareness of already available legal options to enhance the redevelopment of 

brownfields sites 

• No or poor incentives for investors, long term investment risk 

• Negative appearance and environmental risks” 

7 EFFECTIVENESS OF POLICY 

“Sometimes there are good results, sometimes the whole process of development of 

such areas is slowing down, because of too much administration …” 

“Yes (redevelopment eg in Ruhrgebiet), but it takes a long time” 

“In general yes, but it depends on actual implementation in the particular area as to a 

degree there is room for individual solutions” 

“Most policies failed despite the number of excellent projects the number of brownfields 

is increasing ... projects are too complex and costly” 

2 Quotations taken from BMU Federal Environment Ministry web site 



“On a regional level, in principal yes – but there is a lack of communication/co-ordination 

of local administration, therefore no standard approach and there are no indicators to 

measure success of redevelopment” 

“There needs to be a change in the legal framework, need more targeted incentives for 

developers to use brownfield land as the inner city land prices are still higher than 

outside city limits.” 

“No, the necessity of the priority of brownfields before the development of greenfields 

should be written down exactly.” 

“The legislation is alright, but the policies are sometimes too inflexible to support 

brownfield redevelopment” 

On the regional/municipal level this kind of policy varies from city to city or county to 

county and there is an ongoing discussion (driven by political parties and peer groups) 

[as to] the advantages of focusing on inner city development needed from the city’s point 

of view. Some more progressive cities try to combine the topics “inner city 

revitalization”, “urban renewal” and “brownfield redevelopment”. 

Still there is a lack of integrated – economic, ecologic and social - policy approaches. 



COUNTRY PROFILE FORMAT 

This country profile has been prepared from the CLARINET report 

(http://www.clarinet.at/library/brownfields.pdf), supplementary literature review and responses to the EP / 

ODPM study questionnaire. 

Information sources are indicated in the text as follows: 

Italics: CLARINET Annex 1 

Normal text: 

From legislative review 

Bold: 

From questionnaires 

Bold italic: 

Specific quotes from questionnaire returns. 

The aim of this country profile is to provide an accessible and comparable reference. Although the focus 

has been to identify directly relevant information to the issues of redevelopment of brownfields, some of the 

information is more indirectly related (in particular information on policies dealing with contamination or on 

prevention of dereliction or contamination). This has been included to some extent for the completeness of 

the wider picture. However, not all the information in the CLARINET report has been included, as some 

has clearly been superseded or is not relevant in this context. 

Information is transcribed directly, with only very limited editing to clarify the underlying language used. It 

should be noted that the information is unlikely to provide a complete, or fully accurate, picture of each 

country. 

This country profile will be periodically revised and updated by CABERNET. 

The information is presented, where available, in the following structure: 

1 Context 

1.1 Definition 

1.2 Policy focus 

2 Background 

2.1 Type of Sites 

2.2 Administrative Responsibilities 

2.3 Market 

3 Instruments 

3.1 Financial 

3.2 Land Use and Development Control 

3.3 Environmental Controls 

4 Other Initiatives 

5 Technical Approaches and Tools 

6 Obstacles and Gaps 

7 Comments on Effectiveness of Current Policy 

CABERNET 

STATE OF THE 

ART 

Germany 

1 st DRAFT 

April 2003 

This research project supported by the 

European Commission under the 

Fifth Framework Programme, is 

contributing to the implementation of the 

Key Action 

"The City of 

Tomorrow 

and Cultural 

Heritage" 

within the Energy, Environment and 

Sustainable Development 

http://www.cordis.lu/eesd 

Contract No.: EVK4-CT-2001-2004 

GENERAL INFORMATION 

Dr Kate Millar, CABERNET Coordinator 

Land Quality Management Group 

School of Chemical, Environmental and 

Mining Engineering (SChEME) 

University of Nottingham 

University Park 

Nottingham, 

NG7 2RD, UK 

Tel: +44 (0) 115 951 4182 

Fax: +44 (0) 115 951 4320 

E-mail: Kate.Millar@nottingham.ac.uk 

Website: http://www.cabernet.org.uk

State of the Art â Country Profile GERMANY - CABERNET

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

State of the Art â Country Profile GERMANY - CABERNET

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

Delete template?

Save as template ?

State of the Art â Country Profile GERMANY - CABERNET