Belgium offers various funding avenues for adaptive reuse, ranging from government grants and tax incentives to private investment. These resources are crucial for supporting the conversion of heritage sites into usable spaces that meet modern standards while preserving historical significance. For example, the adaptive reuse of the Wiels Brewery into a contemporary art centre was supported by a mix of public funding and private investment, showcasing the diverse funding landscape available for such projects​ (MDPI)​​ (ICLEI Europe)​. 

In addition to traditional funding sources, non-heritage financial mechanisms and crowdfunding are increasingly used to support adaptive reuse projects. These methods allow for greater community involvement and can help bridge funding gaps that might not be covered by traditional sources. Crowdfunding, in particular, has been successful in engaging the public and generating necessary funds for initial project phases or smaller-scale endeavours​ (ICLEI Europe)​. Crowdfunding has emerged as a significant tool for raising funds for adaptive reuse projects. Cinema Nova and ABC cinema, The restoration of the Sint-Anna Church in Ghent through a community-based crowdfunding campaign exemplifies this approach, engaging local citizens directly in heritage conservation.

Private ownership funding and non-heritage financial schemes play a pivotal role in the adaptive reuse ecosystem. For instance, the private redevelopment of the Charleroi Police Tower involved not only heritage funds but also private investment and a commercial real estate fund.

A site with the status of a cultural heritage expands the funding opportunities for interventions and its maintenance. 

The Ministry of Culture allocates funds for reconstruction, restoration, and interventions in cultural heritage sites, but the mechanisms are not very well-known, and typically, these funds are mainly used by public institutions. 

Sofia Municipality started a program called “Cultural Heritage” in 2021 with the aim of assisting in the design and approval process of necessary interventions by relieving approved applicants from the financial and administrative burden for that part. However, the responsibility for securing funds for the implementation of the designed interventions remains with the owners. Most of the beneficiaries by now are public entities.

Additionally, there are funds operating across the country that direct European financial instruments (e.g. JESSICA; JEREMIE) for the improvement of the urban environment or developing small or medium enterprises in the form of low-interest loans with the condition that the projects generate revenue. Although they offer relatively broad opportunities for different applicants, most of the implemented projects are by state and municipal entities.

There are also several other operational programs that can provide funding for the adaptation of cultural heritage sites, even though that is not their primary focus.

Additionally, Europe provides a set of programs and opportunities for funding job creation and mobility, public engagement, research and innovation and popularisation in the field of culture and cultural heritage. 

Most funding opportunities do not distinguish whether the sites are private or public, but often it turns out that the programs are too complex, not widely known, or require too much self-funding or experience, which makes them unfamiliar to private owners. Typically, funding for heritage protection only covers the construction activities themselves, not the entire life cycle of the respective sites. The Sofia Cultural Heritage program is an exception in its efforts to support the preparation and design of the required intervention.

Various funding programs that are not specifically oriented towards cultural heritage could also be used to finance conservation and restoration activities or refunctionalisation. These include most programs related to energy efficiency, innovation, cultural and public infrastructure, as well as recovery and urban development, among others.

Crowdfunding or bottom-up initiatives are quite unpopular in Bulgaria. One of the few examples is the initiative by the Buzludzha Project Foundation related to the Buzludzha monument. The foundation organises a festival during the summer months and applies for various programs to fund conservation, protective, and promotional activities related to the site, which is state-owned.

Buildings that are recognized as cultural heritage sites and are not used for commercial purposes are exempt from property tax, but this relief is often underrated, with the argument that taxes in Bulgaria aren’t high enough for this to be felt as an incentive. There’s still a lack of even this small relief for cases where commercial activities are carried out in cultural heritage buildings, which likely doesn’t encourage the use of such buildings for commercial purposes.

In Cyprus, funding programs and financial mechanisms for the adaptive reuse of heritage vary and may include a combination of public funding, grants, tax incentives, and private financing. Some of the available options include:

1. Government Grants and Subsidies
2. European Union Funding
3. Heritage Conservation Incentives
4. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs)
5. Heritage Lottery Funds
6. Crowdfunding and Community Financing
7. Historic Preservation Easements
8. Loan Programs
9. Heritage Endowment Funds
10. Grants from Heritage Organizations

Funding programs and opportunities for privately-owned heritage sites in Cyprus encompass various options aimed at supporting conservation, adaptive reuse, and sustainable management. These initiatives include grants for capital works, such as conservation and restoration projects, as well as funding for business model development, building use diversification, and heritage tourism enhancement. 

Additionally, public-private partnerships (PPPs) offer collaborative frameworks for accessing resources and expertise to achieve shared heritage conservation goals. Tax incentives, conservation easements, and heritage conservation loans are also available to incentivize private investment in heritage preservation and development. Private owners of heritage sites in Cyprus can explore these funding avenues, collaborate with relevant stakeholders, and submit applications or proposals to access financial support for their conservation and revitalization efforts.

Non-heritage funding schemes and resources that could potentially be channelled towards projects of adaptive heritage reuse in Cyprus include various opportunities aimed at supporting community development, environmental conservation, urban regeneration, arts and culture, social impact investment, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and research and innovation. These programs are not specifically designated for heritage conservation but can still support aspects of adaptive reuse projects, such as infrastructure improvements, community development, or sustainability initiatives. For example, community development grants, environmental funds, and urban regeneration programs provide resources for adaptive heritage reuse initiatives that contribute to the revitalization of urban neighbourhoods and the enhancement of cultural assets. Similarly, corporate CSR programs and social impact investment funds offer financing for adaptive heritage reuse projects that generate positive social and environmental outcomes alongside financial returns. Collaboration, creativity, and strategic partnerships with diverse stakeholders are essential for identifying and accessing these non-heritage funding opportunities to advance heritage conservation and revitalization goals in Cyprus.

Also, there are crowdfunding and bottom-up initiatives connected with adaptive reuse of heritage, much like in many other countries. These initiatives often involve community-driven efforts to raise funds, garner support, and mobilise resources for heritage conservation and adaptive reuse projects. Examples include community fundraising campaigns, volunteer-led restoration projects, heritage preservation groups organising events to raise funds, crowdsourced heritage mapping initiatives, and efforts to foster heritage entrepreneurship. These grassroots initiatives play a crucial role in engaging local communities, raising awareness about heritage values, and mobilising collective action to preserve and revitalise cultural assets. By harnessing the collective power of communities, volunteers, and stakeholders, these bottom-up initiatives contribute to the preservation, promotion, and celebration of the cultural heritage of Cyprus.

In Cyprus, various incentives, including waivers, grants, and tax benefits, exist to encourage heritage reuse projects and support the conservation of cultural heritage assets. These incentives are also targeted towards listed buildings, protected monuments, or a broader range of heritage reuse projects, depending on the specific programs and policies in place. Some examples of incentives include:

1. Tax Incentives
2. Grants and Funding Programs: Examples of grants and funding programs include: European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Cultural Heritage Fund, EU Horizon Europe Program, National Cultural Heritage Grants, Local Government Heritage Grants and Heritage Lottery Funds (if applicable).
3. Procurement Preferences
4. Heritage Conservation Easements

The most important actors for the implementation of the federal-state program for urban monument protection are the municipalities. As joint sponsors of urban renewal, the cities are recipients of the funding agreed in the administrative agreements and urban development funding guidelines of the federal and state governments. Private owners of buildings and properties in the funding area can receive subsidies from the cities for the renovation of their houses. The contact persons for the municipalities are the responsible state ministries and state authorities

Funding is the one area where the federal government (rather than the states) plays a significant role. The different purposes and priorities of the national ministries overlap with the adaptive reuse in different ways. As mentioned above the program “Urban Heritage Protection” (Städtebaulicher Denkmalschutz) is financed by the federal Ministry of Housing, Urban Development and Building and the state’s Ministries for Construction. It was first introduced in the new Länder of the former East Germany in 1991 and in 2009 was extended to cover all states. It also helped leverage further EU funds (Franz, 2015; pp 230).

Since reunification, the federal government has provided massive amounts of funding for restoration and conservation in the states of Berlin, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia. The restoration of major cultural institutions with interregional significance is a special priority.

Beacons of culture which receive funding from the federal government commissioner include the following:

Stiftung Preußische Schlösser und Gärten Berlin-Brandenburg, Potsdam; Stiftung Weimarer Klassik, Weimar; Stiftung Bauhaus Dessau, Dessau; Stiftung Bach-Archiv, Leipzig; Archiv der Stiftung Akademie der Künste, Berlin-Brandenburg; Stiftung Luthergedenkstätten, Wittenberg-Eisleben; Deutsches Meeresmuseum, Stralsund; Kulturstiftung Dessau-Wörlitz; Franckesche Stiftungen, Halle; Stiftung Fürst Pückler-Park, Bad Muskau; Stiftung Fürst Pückler-Museum, Park und Schloss Branitz, Cottbus as well as the Wartburg-Stiftung, Eisenach. A significant proportion of the 28 million euro provided by the federal government Commissioner went towards maintaining the structural fabric.

The Cultural Assets and Landscape Code (CBCP) outlines three main forms of financial contribution from the State for heritage restoration and enhancement:1) total contribution by the State; 2) up to 50% the total amount of the investment by the State when a privately-owned cultural asset is significant in term of public use; 3) public-private partnership.

State funding programs for cultural heritage are administered by the Ministry of Culture (MiC), which promotes an exploitative vision of cultural assets. MiC seeks to link cultural heritage enhancement, tourism development, and entrepreneurship. This approach is part of a comprehensive reform of the cultural system (Franceschini’s reform) initiated in 2014, aimed at strengthening the connection between the cultural and tourism sectors. A decree issued in 2014 created a dedicated fund aimed at preserving cultural heritage (Fondo per la tutela del patrimonio culturale). However, the funding available through this means has decreased since its inception. Portions of this funding are allocated through specific projects.

In the same year, the Directorate General for Contemporary Art, Architecture, and Urban Outskirts (Direzione Generale Arte e Architettura Contemporanee e Periferie Urbane – DGAAP) was established as a dedicated office within MiC to promote contemporary culture, art, and architecture. One objective of the DGAAP is to encourage cultural initiatives in underprivileged urban areas, including reuse projects.

Finally, provisions in the 2017 Finance Act (Finanziaria 2017) allocate housing tenures and fines stipulated by the Building Code, among other things, to disadvantaged urban areas and historic centres. These funds are used to finance reuse and regeneration projects, as well as to support the conservation and renovation of the environment and landscape.

Besides the State, funds for heritage enhancement also comes from private stakeholders. They can be foundations that launch public calls inviting non-profit organisations to propose social and cultural projects based on adaptive reuse of either public or private buildings (heritage included). In other cases, can be private investors that take advantage of government incentives. As a matter of fact, the The Cultural Assets and Landscape Code recognizes donations (erogazioni liberali or mecenatismo culturale), based on tax exemption or reduction, and sponsorships which promote conservation and the enhancement of cultural heritage.

Among these the most important resource is the Art Bonus introduced by the Government in 2014. It is a tax exemption for charitable donations made by individuals or companies to support public cultural heritage. The purpose of the donations must be for the maintenance, conservation, and restoration of public cultural assets or to support public cultural institutions such as museums, libraries, archives, archaeological parks, etc. After an initial trial period, the Art Bonus was made permanent, and a specific fund was established during 2016-2018 to supplement Art Bonus donations. However, some contradictions have emerged in the results. The donation system has not been adequately measured and has thus proven to be ineffective for two main reasons: a) fiscal incentives in the cultural heritage sector are less economically advantageous compared to other sectors; b) the high level of bureaucracy. Additionally, the tax benefits of the Art Bonus scheme apply only to publicly-owned cultural heritage, excluding significant private assets found throughout the country.

Since the 2008 crisis, the dramatic fall in demand for assets destined for development has led to the emergence of new forms of cultural heritage reuse, mainly driven by civil society actors. These experiences are community-led, often relying on self-financing mechanisms or partial financial support from public authorities. In the majority of cases, public authorities contribute by entrusting the management of cultural assets to non-profit actors through the legal terms of bailment at no charge.

Spain offers a variety of funding programs and financial mechanisms to support the adaptive reuse of cultural heritage. Key programs are administered at different government levels, including national, regional, and local, and are often supplemented by European Union funds. The Ministry of Culture and Sport is a primary national entity providing grants and subsidies for heritage conservation and adaptive reuse projects. These funds are aimed at preserving historical buildings, promoting cultural activities, and enhancing the sustainable use of heritage sites. For privately-owned heritage sites, such as grants offered by the Spanish Cultural Heritage Institute (IPCE) that can be used for comprehensive projects encompassing conservation, adaptive reuse, and public engagement strategies. Additionally, regional governments often have specific funds and initiatives targeting private owners, such as tax incentives or subsidies for heritage maintenance and adaptive reuse projects. Non-heritage funding schemes such as European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), support regional development and can be applied to heritage projects as part of broader urban renewal or tourism initiatives.

The Spanish government provides tax deductions for donations to heritage conservation projects and VAT reductions for restoration works. Regional and local governments may also offer additional incentives, such as reduced property taxes for owners undertaking conservation efforts.

The financial sustainability of adaptive reuse initiatives in Spain varies widely, depending on factors such as project scale, funding availability, and management practices. Successful projects usually combine multiple funding sources, including public grants, private investment, and revenue from cultural and commercial activities. Collaborative approaches involving public-private partnerships and community involvement are often key to achieving long-term sustainability. There is a robust framework of funding programmes and institutional support for the adaptive reuse of heritage sites. These mechanisms not only facilitate the preservation of cultural heritage but also promote innovative and sustainable uses that benefit communities and contribute to local economic development.

Regarding public funding, there are essentially two main channels for funding actions or activities related to cultural heritage: direct funding, with investment aimed directly at the different actions that will be carried out on an asset; and indirect funding, the aim of which is not the asset, although it is ultimately beneficial. In cultural heritage management, direct funding channels are recognised as those related to the programmes promoted and managed by the governments in their annual budgets. 

In the case of the AGE of Spain, there are channels such as aid on a competitive basis (calls governed by specific terms that include, among other aspects, valuation criteria) and direct and nominative subsidies (defined in Article 65 of Royal Decree 887/2006 and in Article 22 of Law 38/2003, such as those with a budgetary allocation and beneficiary that are specified in the General State Budgets). 

Within the Ministry of Culture and Sports, the Directorate General of Cultural Industries, Intellectual Property and Cooperation grants aid that can be included in the category of indirect funding; while for direct funding, the calls of the Directorate General of Cultural Heritage and Fine Arts are worth noting.

Aid on a competitive basis: 

• Projects for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage (Sub-Directorate General of the Spanish Institute of Cultural Heritage). 

• Internationalisation of art galleries (Sub-Directorate General of State Museums). 

• Archaeological excavations abroad (Sub-Directorate General of the Spanish Institute of Cultural Heritage). 

• Projects for the conservation, protection and dissemination of assets declared world heritage (Sub-Directorate General of Management and Coordination of Cultural Assets). 

It is also worth highlighting the calls for the 2 % allocation for culture of the Ministry of Transport, Mobility and Urban Agenda (MITMA) for conservation or enrichment actions of Spanish historical heritage and of the Ministry for Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge (MITECO) for innovative projects of territorial transformation and the fight against depopulation. Within the scope of their power, it is also necessary to understand the aid offered by autonomous regions, provincial councils and local entities. 

On the other hand, indirect funding operations that involve the promotion of cultural heritage may be those derived from specific European programmes, such as Creative Europe and Horizon Europe. In general, public or private organisations with a minimum of two years of existence, which have their own legal personality and which belong to Member States of the European Union, can participate in these calls.

One of the mechanisms in which the participation of civil society is translated is sponsorship and patronage, which also includes business collaboration agreements in activities of general interest and support programmes for events of exceptional public interest, as well as the assignment, with a counterparty, of cultural spaces for social or private uses. Another incentive for these practices is, without a doubt, obtaining the specific tax benefits with which the government encourages companies or individuals to collaborate on cultural projects. The regulatory framework that governs these forms of funding in Spain is mainly made up of the following elements: 

• General State Budget Law 

• Law 16/1985 on Spanish Historical Heritage 

• Income tax deductions for natural persons who acquire, conserve, repair, restore, disseminate and exhibit BIC 

• Tax benefits 

• Law 49/2002 on Tax Regime for Non-Profit Entities and Tax Incentives for Patronage 

• Income tax deductions for donations

• Corporate tax deductions for donations
• Law 50/2002 on Foundations