BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Managing Risks for Safer Cities COVER PHOTO Credit: Nicholas Kingston © 2010 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Managing Risks for Safer Cities © 2015 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / International Development Association or The World Bank /// /// 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions /// /// The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202- 522-2422; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Photo Credits /// /// Photos specifically credited are done so under Creative Commons Licenses. The licenses used are indicated through icons showcased next to each image. b 2.0 Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode) bd Attribution No-Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/legalcode) ba Attribution Share Alike License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode) If not indicated otherwise, photos used in this publication have been sourced from the following locations with full rights: World Bank Flickr Website United Nations Flickr Website iStockphoto All non-Creative Commons images in this publication require permission for reuse. Table of Contents 09 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 11 FOREWORD 12 ACRONYMS /ABBREVIATIONS 13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 20 INTRODUCTION 31 WHY BUILDING REGULATION HAS NOT REDUCED DISASTER AND CHRONIC RISK IN LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES 31 1.1— Introduction 31 Obstacles to effective building and land use regulation 32 Deadly consequences of unregulated development 32 Failure to address both chronic and disaster hazards 34 1.2— Failures of urban land management 34 Unavailability of affordable, safe, and accessible land 34 Missing linkage of hazard mapping to effective risk reduction 36 1.3— Insufficient legislative foundation for effective building regulation at the national level 38 1.4—Inadequate building codes 38 Inappropriate transfer of codes from high-income countries 38 Participation in balancing acceptable risk and affordability 40 Failure of codes to address locally prevalent non-engineered construction 40 Absence of guidance for improved resilience of traditional forms of construction 41 Failure of building codes to address the prevalent pattern of incremental construction 42 Lack of quality control for building materials and equipment 43 Limited access to code documents or training for code compliance 03 04 44 1.5— Weakness in building code administration and institutional capacity 44 Shortage of technically qualified personnel and funding at local and municipal levels 47 Corruption or regulatory capture? 48 Lack of transparency in design and implementation of regulatory processes 49 1.6— Costly and inefficient building code implementation procedures 49 Increased bureaucratic burden does not correlate with more effective inspections 50 Opaque language and limited focus on the poor 51 Excessive permitting fees 51 Failure to mobilize private sector resources for code implementation 52 Failure to exploit information and communications technology for efficient code implementation 54 Regulatory resources not allocated in proportion to risk exposure 54 Absence of appeal process for dispute resolution 55 1.7— Failure to institutionalize post-disaster regulation 55 Missed opportunity to introduce regulatory process for public buildings 55 Inability to take advantage of disaster experience to create permanent building regulatory institutions 55 1.8— Conclusion 56 COMPONENTS OF A BUILDING REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 56 2.1— Overview of regulatory process 57 Key components of an effective building regulatory regime 58 Regulatory ecology: The interdependent institutional context 59 2.2— Key components of a building regulatory process 59 Legal and administrative capacity 60 Code development and maintenance 61 Characteristics of effective codes 65 Compliance support oriented by plan review, site inspections, and permitting 70 2.3— Regulatory ecology: The interdependent institutional context 75 2.4— Conclusion 76 MAKING BUILDING REGULATION WORK FOR DISASTER RISK REDUCTION IN LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES 76 3.1— Drivers of compliance and principles of regulatory practice 76 Drivers of regulatory compliance 78 Principles of regulatory practice 79 3.2— Agenda to strengthen regulatory implementation in low- and middle-income countries 79 Ensuring the safety of new construction and reducing the risk of existing vulnerable settlements 80 Seven points of intervention to establish and expand building regulatory capacity 113 3.3— Conclusion 114 3.4— Summary of recommendations 116 PROGRAMMATIC OPPORTUNITIES 116 4.1— A programmatic proposal in support of the Sendai Framework for Action agenda 117 4.2—Program strategic goal 118 4.3— Program activities and institutions 118 Component 1: National Level Legislation and Institutions 119 Component 2: Building Code Development and Maintenance 120 Component 3: Local Implementation 121 Component 4: Knowledge Sharing and Measurement 122 4.4— Measuring progress 124 Measuring interim accomplishments 125 CONCLUSION 126 ENDNOTES 128 REFERENCES 05 06 LIST OF TABLES 45 Table 1.1— Overview of corruption types and related activities 95 Table 3.1— Good practice in setting fees for construction permits and inspection LIST OF FIGURES 19 Figure I.1 — Building Regulation for Resilience Program 23 Figure I.2 — Annual rate of urban expansion by country (2000-10) 24 Figure I.3 — Disaster financing as a proportion of total international aid (1991-2010) 25 Figure I.4 — Fire events & regulatory response in New York City (1776-2000) 26 Figure I.5 — Seismic events & regulatory response in California (1906-to date) 32 Figure 1.1 — A Tale of Two Cities: The Paso Robles and Bam earthquakes of December 2003 53 Figure 1.2 — A range of challenges for the reform of building permits in Turkey 58 Figure 2.1 — Components of a building code regulatory regime 71 Figure 2.2 — Regulatory ecology and core system elements 87 Figure 3.1 — Excerpt from EERI and CCR guidebook on confined masonry 89 Figure 3.2 — Greater access to regulatory information is associated with greater trust in regulatory quality 97 Figure 3.3 — Colombia: Using private sector resources to issue building permits and developing accountability in an incremental way 111 Figure 3.4 — A range of non-financial incentives that can be used in support of voluntary standards 117 Figure 4.1 — Building Regulation for Resilience Program 122 Figure 4.2 — Potential stakeholders of the Building Regulation for Resilience Program 124 Figure 4.3 — Core indicators of progress and impact LIST OF BOXES 22 Box I.1 — Six sets of actions supporting the development of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction agenda in the field of building regulations 33 Box 1.1 — The accumulation of chronic risk: The case of Kenya 37 Box 1.2 — How innovative building control regulations in Turkey were impaired by the absence of sufficiently supportive legal frameworks 39 Box 1.3 — Zimbabwe’s repeated attempts to improve housing conditions through building standards 44 Box 1.4 — Illustrating the restrained capacity of Lebanese municipalities to conduct building permit reviews and inspections 48 Box 1.5 — Why the success of effective building controls in Trinidad and Tobago hinges on a commitment to transparency 49 Box 1.6 — Tajikistan: So many building inspections, for what result? 60 Box 2.1 — Establishing minimum qualifications for building professionals 62 Box 2.2 — Building cyclone-resistant housing in Madagascar by linking hazard zoning maps and building code 63 Box 2.3 — Obtaining market acceptance of innovations through a performance-based building regulatory framework in South Africa 72 Box 2.4 — The Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) 73 Box 2.5 — Accreditation of building regulatory agencies 74 Box 2.6 — The French mandatory liability insurance system: A main driver of compliance with building standards 75 Box 2.7 — Building code effectiveness and insurance 81 Box 3.1 — Historical evolution of building codes in Japan 83 Box 3.2 — How Jamaica adapted and localized an international model building code 84 Box 3.3 — Nepal Society for Earthquake Technology and the Nepal Building Code 85 Box 3.4 — The Peruvian Building Seismic Code for earthen buildings 86 Box 3.5 — A promising example in a lower-middle-income country: How Guatemala developed a new accredited laboratory for building materials 89 Box 3.6 — Peru and Nicaragua: Simplification of building permitting procedures through communication (2006-2009) 90 Box 3.7 — How building regulatory decisions are appealed in Ontario, Canada 92 Box 3.8 — A standardized simplification of building permitting procedures: A four-stage approach 93 Box 3.9 — The Istanbul Seismic Risk Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Project (ISMEP) 94 Box 3.10 — Implementing online construction permits in Nairobi, Kenya 07 08 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE 96 Box 3.11 — How FYR Macedonia ended a bureaucratic system of building code implementation procedures by collaborating with the private sector 99 Box 3.12 — Case study: Post-earthquake reconstruction in Central Java, Indonesia 100 Box 3.13 — The Pakistan Rural Housing Reconstruction Program, post- 2005 earthquake 103 Box 3.14 — Improving safe construction in Peru through informed building code regulations and seismic hazard knowledge 104 Box 3.15 — How the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) makes information on hazard available to the public 105 Box 3.16 — Limiting development in hazard zones: Allowable land use in floodplains in Minnesota, United States 107 Box 3.17 — UN-Habitat’s proposed incremental approach to improving tenure security 108 Box 3.18 — Three major themes in the IAS accreditation process 123 Box 4.1 — What is the Doing Business report? Acknowledgments The report was written by Thomas Moullier in Sameh Naguib Wahba, Shaela Rahman, and Vittoria close collaboration with Frederick Krimgold. Franchini. A team supervised by Thomas Moullier and We are grateful to our colleagues from UN-Habitat, comprising the following individuals contributed UNESCO, and the Japan International Cooperation to relevant background work: Keiko Sakoda Agency (JICA) for their contributions and guidance. Kaneda, Jennifer Duyne, Florentin Blanc, Individuals from these organizations include Giuseppa Ottimofiore, Michael de Lint, Ommid Tatsuo Narafu, Dan Lewis, Patricia Holly Purcell, Saberi, Antoine Hanzen, and Naseem Baradaran Robert Lewis-Lettington, Soichiro Yasukawa, and Alexandros Makarigakis. Substantive contributions Fallahkhair. Important contributors also included were received from the American Association for Eric Dickson, Mohsen Ashtiany, Oscar Anil Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), specifically from Ishizawa Escudero, Shahnaz Arshad, Emmy Sylvana Ricciarini and Peter Unger in association Chepkirui, Markus Njehiah Kimani, John Keddy with Alexander Pineda and Luis Velasquez, Mwangi, Fernando Ramirez Cortes, Yelda Kirbay respectively head of Oficina Guatemalteca de Reis, Patricia Steele, Kathrine Kirstein, Kim Acreditacion (OGA) and director of Centro Lovegrove, and Christopher Chung. Tecnologico del Cemento y Concreto (CETEC) in We thank our colleagues, both internal and Guatemala. external, who provided helpful comments and We are thankful for the administrative and reviews on this report and on its preliminary logistical support provided by Valerie Ligonde, outline published in January 2015. These Loretta Matthews, Hoang Minh Do, Kim-Van Thi individuals include Francis Ghesquiere, Ellen Nguyen, and Regianne Henriette Bertolassi. Hamilton, Niels Holm-Nielsen, Abhas K. Jha, Alejandro Espinosa Wang, Jolanta Kryspin-Watson, We thank the team at Bivee Inc, including Haley Sofia Bettencourt, Amod Dixit, Jeroen van der Cline, Scott Schaffter, Jay Perry, and Nicholas Kingston, for the design and layout of the report Heijden, Margaret Arnold, Mike Davis, Polat and Anne Himmelfarb for proofreading and Gülkan, Geoffrey Payne, Syed Akhtar Mahmood, copyediting services. Chuck Ramani, Raj Nathan, Alberto Herrera, Theo Schilderman, Tony Gibbs, Yukiyasu Kamemura, Special thanks are due to Christine Zhenwei Qiang Peter May, Pedro Oliveira, Paul Everall, Andrew and her team from the Trade & Competitiveness Minturn, Ismet Gungor, Abigail Baca, Zuzana Global Practice of the World Bank Group, as well Stanton-Geddes, Iwan Gunawan, Rinsan Tobing, as the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Sri Probo Sudarmo, Artessa Saldivar-Sali, Svetlana Recovery, for their generous funding and support. Brzev, Prashant Singh, James Newman, Luis Tineo, Jon Mikel Walton, Catherine Farvacque-Vitkovic, Ira Peppercorn, John Wille, Marc Forni, Steven Louis Rubinyi, James Turner, Ellen Vaughan, 09 Foreword Poor populations are disproportionately harmed these investments can be balanced against the by major natural disasters, such as floods and reduced loss of life and property in future disasters. landslides, as well as recurring smaller-scale Producing safe and resilient cities, communities, events like fires and spontaneous collapse. The and homes must be the priority. unregulated settlements where they often live are in areas prone to such hazards, and their informally Building Regulation for Resilience presents key constructed houses tend to be highly vulnerable to lessons, experiences, and challenges to progress climate and disaster risk. in building regulatory capacity for disaster risk reduction, and includes illuminating case studies Building and land use regulation has proven a of successes and failures. It sets forth practical remarkably powerful tool for increasing people’s measures, grouped into seven major priorities, safety and resilience and limiting the risk that they to create a new momentum for bridging the face, including both the risk of large, rapid-onset implementation gap. Under the proposed agenda, events such as earthquakes or cyclones, and the risk the international community has an opportunity of more contained but still deadly events such as to leverage regulatory governance as a means fire or spontaneous building collapse. of proactively protecting populations, avoiding For low- and middle-income countries, however, disasters, and encouraging sustainable and resilient this tool has proved elusive. These countries lack urban development. the mature regulatory regimes that are sustained by Now is the right time to build on this momentum. a regulatory “ecology” of supporting institutions. With the adoption of the Sendai Framework for Nor have they much benefited from knowledge Disaster Risk Reduction, there is a clear international transfer or compliance assistance of functional consensus recognizing the importance of building regulatory regimes. Simple transfer of documents codes and standards. Going forward, improved from mature regulatory systems—without specific adaptation to local cultural, economic, and political building regulatory capacity must be part of the factors affecting compliance—has led to a critical effort to reduce risk among the most vulnerable “implementation gap.” and ensure shared prosperity. Part of the challenge for low- and middle- income countries is the pace of urbanization. These countries will experience a doubling of their building stocks in the next 15 to 20 years. It is crucial that this new construction helps to lower risk and does not recreate or expand Francis Ghesquiere existing vulnerability. While safer, code-compliant Global Facility for Disaster Reduction & Recovery construction may add to initial construction costs, April 2016 11 12 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Acronyms /Abbreviations AIA American Institute of Architects ICC International Code Council BCA Building Consent Authority ICT information and communication technology BCC Building Code Commission IFC International Finance Corporation BCEGS Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule ISMEP Istanbul Seismic Risk Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Project BEEPS Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey ISO Insurance Services Office CAPRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment JICA Japan International Cooperation program Agency CBO community-based organization JNBC Jamaican National Building Code CENEPRED National Center for Estimation, KEBS Kenya Bureau of Standards Prevention and Reduction of Disaster MCC Mennonite Central Committee Risk NBC Nepal Building Code CETEC Centro Tecnológico del Cemento y Concreto NEC National Ethics Council CTIF International Association of Fire and NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Rescue Services Reduction Program DRR disaster risk reduction NGO nongovernmental organization EERI Earthquake Engineering Research NSET Nepal Society for Earthquake Institute Technology FEMA Federal Emergency Management OECD Organisation for Economic Co- Agency operation and Development FID Fund of Intervention for Development OGA Guatemalan Accreditation Body FIMA Federal Insurance and Mitigation RFPE regulatory flood protection elevation Administration RVS rapid visual screening GDP gross domestic product UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific GEM Global Earthquake Model and Cultural Organization GFDRR Global Facility for Disaster Reduction UNIDNDR United Nations International Decade and Recovery for Disaster Reduction GIS geographic information system UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction HFA Hyogo Framework for Action USAID U.S. Agency for International HFA2 Hyogo Framework for Action 2 Development HMF housing microfinance USGS U.S. Geological Survey IANZ International Accreditation New Zealand IAS International Accreditation Service All figures are in US$ unless otherwise stated. IBC International Building Code IBHS Insurance Institute for Business Home Safety Executive SUMMARY Executive Summary Nor has it been successful in addressing chronic Mobilizing building code risk—indeed, governments rarely even record regulations for risk reduction events such as building collapse and fires, let alone cover the loss. In the past 20 years, natural disasters have affected 4.4 billion people, claimed 1.3 million lives, and Building code implementation has a crucial role caused $2 trillion in economic losses. 1 to play in disaster risk reduction (DRR), one that until recently has not received adequate attention. Exceptional disaster events, along with chronic This report focuses on how building regulation can events such as individual building collapse and be enhanced to save lives and reduce destruction fires, disproportionately impact the poor and the from both disasters and chronic risks. Notably, it marginalized. In the last 30 years, over 80 percent2 supports a shift in focus from managing disasters to of the total life years lost in disasters came from reducing underlying risks. low- and middle-income countries, typically setting back national economies by 5 to 120 percent of Successful mechanisms of risk reduction and gross domestic product (GDP). There is evidence hazard adaptation in developed countries have that disasters’ impact on GDP is 20 times higher relied in large part on effective and efficient in developing countries than in industrial nations. building regulatory systems, which have been These impacts pose a major threat to the World incrementally improved over time. In the past 10 Bank Group’s goals of eradicating poverty and years, high-income countries with more advanced boosting shared prosperity. building code systems experienced 47 percent of disasters globally, yet accounted for only 7 percent As the scale, frequency, and severity of natural of disaster fatalities.4 hazards continue to rise, so will future expected losses in the built environment. The annual losses A comparison between the 2003 earthquakes in resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, Paso Robles, California, and Bam, Iran, further tsunamis, cyclones, and flooding are expected to illustrates this pattern. The earthquakes had increase from roughly $300 billion to $415 billion similar magnitudes and struck within three days by 2030.3 of each other. However, the death toll was two in Paso Robles as opposed to more than 40,000— The international community has made significant nearly half the city’s population—in Bam.5 progress in strengthening disaster preparedness, response, and early warning systems. However, it has been less successful in effectively mitigating underlying risks in the pre-disaster context, especially in low- and middle-income countries. 13 14 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE To move from concept to action, the report Sendai Framework for outlines a proposed Building Regulation for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015- Resilience Program. This program offers a structure 2030 to involve and galvanize a wide range of partners with specific strengths and experiences to build a regulatory process applicable to all types of In March 2015, the Third UN World Conference buildings. The strategic goal of the proposed on Disaster Risk Reduction adopted the Sendai program is to help reduce human and economic Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, losses by avoiding the creation of new risks and by making it the first major agreement of the post- reducing existing risks in the built environment. 2015 development agenda. The priorities of the Sendai Framework for Action have ample references Why building regulation has to building and land use regulatory development, and they consider implementation to be a key not yet reduced disaster element of disaster risk reduction. This agenda and chronic risk in low- and is evidence of a strong international consensus middle-income countries to expand the full potential of effective building regulation in reducing risks. This report advocates The process of rural-urban migration in the implementing the Sendai Framework for Action developing world over recent decades has taken through a bold and coordinated international effort place largely in the absence of effective building to reduce risks in the built environment. or land use regulation. Without regulatory guidance, urban development has extended to Report’s scope and target audience hazardous sites and resulted in the construction of unsafe, vulnerable settlements. This process This report is a resource to assist policy makers, of unregulated urbanization has vastly expanded governments, private sector and donor entities in global disaster risk. leveraging good-practice building code regulation into effective strategies for reducing disaster risk The failure of regulatory policy and implementation and chronic risk, thereby setting disaster-prone in low- and middle-income countries has several countries on track toward effective reform. It root causes. Poverty has been a major factor leading provides practical recommendations and a review to urban migration and a limiting factor in the development of municipal services and regulatory of applicable innovations for a reform agenda. capacity. This failure has been compounded by Both of these components are based on a review other factors as well: of factors that have prevented building codes from being an effective tool for disaster and chronic risk Ineffective land use systems. Land use /// /// reduction in developing countries. systems have failed to limit settlements in hazardous areas and served to exclude a large The report recognizes the significant proportion of the urban population from legal land interdependency between land use management and housing markets. These factors dramatically and building regulatory issues. However, its focus increase urban disaster risks. Furthermore, in the is on building regulation and code implementation. absence of effective systems, cities in low-income At the same time, the report highlights how closely countries have rapidly expanded into hazardous land use management relates to effective building territory without clear title or critically needed code implementation. infrastructure. Executive SUMMARY Weaknesses in building code administration /// building standards has frequently been a top- and institutional capacity. A fundamental /// down directive that does not sufficiently consult problem in low- and middle-income countries with stakeholders, including both private building is the lack of funding and support for building professionals and local communities. This has regulation at the local level. The problem is usually led countries to borrow unaffordable standards rooted in deeper challenges linked to income from abroad. Thus, building codes in low-income levels and authority over taxation, as well as in countries have often set the bar too high, creating constitutional and administrative structures. Many dependency on imported building materials while local governments do not have adequate staff with stifling local innovation. technical skills necessary to appropriately monitor new construction. Photo credit: International Organization for Migration Insufficient legislative foundation. Incomplete /// /// Insufficient recognition of prevalent building national legislation has resulted in the failure to /// establish principles of regulatory implementation practices. Incremental construction—the gradual /// or designate public and private responsibilities. step-by-step process through which owner-builders Building regulation often remains unconnected append or improve building components as with the larger ecosystem of civil, commercial, and funding, time, or materials become available—is criminal law. a widespread informal practice. However, formal systems of building codes almost never recognize Unaffordable compliance costs for the poor. /// /// The process of designing and adopting appropriate this type of construction, widening the gap between the formal and informal building sectors. 15 16 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Post-disaster reconstruction projects have The essential highlighted the fact that owner-builders in low- income settings are capable of integrating risk components of a building reduction into their traditional building practices. regulatory framework The coping strategies they have developed should be accepted as a contribution to resilience. For This report identifies three basic components example, dhajji dewari, an economical and culturally that form the core of any building code regulatory accepted form of construction in Northern regime: a legal and administrative framework at the Pakistan, can be modified to safely withstand national level, a building code development and earthquake forces. In the aftermath of the 2005 maintenance process, and a set of implementation earthquake, the region’s local building code did mechanisms at the local level. not recognize this form of construction, which However, these core components of a building and hampered official funding for dhajji dewari’s use in land use regulatory framework do not function housing reconstruction. in a vacuum. In the developed world, regulatory Dysfunctional regimes of building controls. /// /// capacity has evolved in parallel with a complex Permitting and inspections services in developing mix, or “ecology,” of supporting institutions. economies are usually expensive, overly complex, These institutions have provided legal and and inefficient. Compliance with codes can financial mechanisms as well as certified technical increase building costs, and these costs can act competence required to achieve regulatory as a deterrent to meeting code requirements. In compliance. Key elements of this regulatory Mumbai, India, for example, the formal aggregate ecology include the general conditions for administrative fee for going through a tedious 27- commercial development, the rule of law, security step planning and construction permitting process of tenure, and functioning building finance and is equivalent to 46 percent of the total construction insurance mechanisms. cost. In Organisation for Economic Co-operation Important institutions specific to the building and Development (OECD) countries, however, sector include accredited building professional the same process takes only 11 steps and accounts education, professional societies and related codes for 1.7 percent of the total construction cost on of practice, accredited training institutions for average.6 the construction labor force, licensing procedures for building professionals, and quality control Corruption and regulatory capture. /// /// processes for building materials. Corruption in building code enforcement has been associated with extensive building failure and loss of life in disasters. Recent statistical A vigorous building regulatory evidence shows that 83 percent of all deaths reform agenda to support from earthquakes in the past three decades have occurred in countries considered most corrupt by the Sendai Framework for Transparency International.7 Regulatory capture Disaster Risk Reduction in building code systems can considerably distort outcomes by reducing safety standards to benefit New urban development between 2015 and 2030 the regulated industry. Conversely, regulatory will exceed all previous urban development capture can also result in the increase of safety throughout history. Of the area expected to be standards to unsustainable or unaffordable levels, urbanized by 2030, 60 percent remains to be built, thus excluding local owners and builders. primarily in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.8 Executive SUMMARY The two key priorities of the report’s 2. Developing the capacity of national and /// recommendations are subnational institutions. A coordinated /// i. to stop the expansion of disaster and chronic effort toward disaster risk reduction should risk in the siting and construction of new address the need for adequate funding, staffing, and execution necessary to implement building settlements; and and land use regulation at the local level. This ii. to reduce disaster risk in vulnerable existing requires specific support for training building settlements. officials as well as funding to ensure appropriate New construction with appropriate design can be compensation. It also demands parallel efforts made disaster-resistant for a small percentage of in the development of building and planning construction cost, on the order of 5 to 10 percent.9 education, financial and insurance mechanisms The retrofit of existing vulnerable structures may for the management of risk, and public require major expenditure, in the range of 10 understanding of the importance of safe siting to 50 percent of building value.10 Establishing and construction practice. standards and implementation mechanisms for inspection of new construction provides a solid 3. Focusing on creating building standards /// institutional and technical foundation from which appropriate to the poor and vulnerable. /// to address the significant disaster risk of existing Low-income and lower-middle-income countries vulnerable settlements. have the least capacity to cope with disaster losses. Where regulations are unknown, The report’s proposed reform agenda charts unenforceable, or excessive, most people tend closely interrelated strategic actions aimed at to disregard them, especially the poor. The reinforcing the regulatory capacity of countries at benefits of a safer built environment should be various stages of development. The following are accessible and affordable for the poor. An open the main development priorities suggested by the participatory process with representation from report’s recommendations. all relevant stakeholder groups is necessary to 1. Orienting regulatory and governance /// ensure regulatory provisions that represent reforms toward compliance advice the values and resources of the community. and support rather than just police Consistent with this approach, support should enforcement. Positive experiences from /// be given to measures that improve security of post-disaster reconstruction programs have tenure and reduce the cost of entry to the legal demonstrated the potential of building land and housing markets. advisory services. Through such services, building inspectors would guide builders to 4. Promoting innovations for effective /// code-compliant and safer structures that meet building controls. Experience over the past 20 /// essential standards of safety (as in Central Java, years suggests that administrative simplification and similar measures can reduce regulatory Indonesia, after the 2006 earthquake, or Pakistan compliance costs. With appropriate safeguards after the 2005 earthquake). This supportive and in place, jurisdictions with high levels of disaster advisory role, coupled with rigorous inspection, or chronic risk should be able to leverage should be institutionalized as general practice private sector technical resources to expand under normal pre-disaster conditions. the qualified workforce available for regulatory implementation. This approach also holds 17 18 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE the potential of easing the burden of building The proposed program has four components: permitting procedures on local governments. Component 1 - National level legislation Modern compliance tools to facilitate this /// process include improved information and and institutions. Activities under Component /// communications systems for risk management, 1 will establish or improve national legislative building practitioners’ certification, private frameworks responsible for mandating the third-party accreditation to provide review and construction of safe buildings and enabling the inspection, and the use of insurance mechanisms construction process to proceed efficiently. These to augment building control. Moreover, activities will be based on locally defined priorities. numerous experiences in the field demonstrate Additionally, financial investment will aim to fund that transparency and procedural justice result national hazard mapping programs and to expand in greater effectiveness of regulation and the capacity of central authorities. compliance; both can be implemented through small, incremental steps. These steps typically Component 2 - Building code development /// include measures that reduce arbitrary discretion and maintenance. Component 2 will support /// in planning and building permit approvals. Such the introduction of locally implementable building measures also serve to expand the disclosure codes, including the adaptation of national of information related to technical and model codes. It will help to establish the basic administrative requirements. institutional capacity to develop, adapt, and update appropriate standards of construction A programmatic approach through participative and transparent processes to catalyze investment in at the national level. The criteria for evaluating and improving vulnerable existing buildings regulatory capacity will be a particular focus. Direct investment will involve the funding of materials testing facilities Priority 3 of the post-2015 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction calls for a coordinated and equipment, training of staff, research into effort around rehabilitation of building codes and safer local construction methods, and funding of standards. It acknowledges the need for a localized programs to accredit product-testing laboratories. and calibrated approach with a focus on vulnerable Finally, this component will support the broad settlements, irrespective of the broader income dissemination of regulatory documentation and category of the country. the delivery of educational and training programs, which will be based on code-compliant practices, Successfully reducing risk in the most vulnerable for all elements of the building sector. areas will considerably depend on how other development initiatives succeed in helping the Component 3 - Local implementation. poor access better and safer housing and essential /// /// Activities under Component 3 will focus on the services. The proposed Building Regulation for practical administration of the local building Resilience Program, outlined in the last chapter department. This will include managing the of this report, will create synergies with related programs. These programs include upgrading of core functions of building technical assistance, informal settlements, affordable housing projects, plan review, site inspection, permitting, and housing finance, land development and land use enforcement, with the goal of facilitating voluntary policies, regularization initiatives, and post-disaster code compliance. Advisory activities will give reconstruction programs. priority to providing outreach services to informal Executive SUMMARY FIGURE I.1 — Building Regulation for Resilience Program Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4 National Level Legislation Building Code Developement Local Implementation Knowledge Sharing and Institutions and Maintenance and Measurement Country-level interventions sector builders in order to expand access to the A call for action benefits of the building safety and regulatory processes. Direct investment in local and The world will witness the construction of 1 municipal building departments will fund building billion new dwelling units by 2050. Much of this department staff and inspector training, specialized growth will take place in cities with weak capacity equipment for plan review and inspection, data to ensure risk-sensitive urban development. The management, information and communication international community must act now to pursue technology (ICT) applications to facilitate efficient more effective approaches to land use management communication with clients, and training of and building regulation. external building practitioners. Regulatory capacity development in countries and municipalities with high levels of risk can ensure Component 4 - Knowledge sharing and that future construction and urban expansion will /// measurement. Component 4 will provide an be located on safer sites and will be built to protect /// international focal point for exchanging experience population health and safety. Building regulation and innovation related to building regulatory can work as a catalyst to leverage the total implementation. This component will develop and investment in building and infrastructure toward maintain common tools for assessing regulatory greater safety and security. By implementing capacity, effectiveness, and efficiency; carry building regulation and supporting active out diagnostics, risk audits, and evaluation of compliance, the proposed Building Regulation for regulatory system capacity; and develop specialized Resilience Program can accelerate the application standardized tools for assessment and rating of current scientific and engineering understanding purposes. The evaluations carried out under this to a safer built environment. component will track progress at the country Building and land use regulations have proven and local levels. They will also serve as the basis the most effective tools for risk reduction in the for documenting good practices and identifying developed world. For a range of reasons, many low- opportunities for assistive intervention. Overall, and middle-income countries have not successfully this component will serve as a center for global employed these tools. With the initiation of the resources and documentation on the topics of Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015- building and land use regulation for disaster and 2030, there is now an opportunity to act, armed chronic risk reduction. with extensive experience and new approaches. 19 Introduction of total global disaster-related fatalities.12 A Poor-quality construction report funded by the Global Facility for Disaster as the main contributor to Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) shows that expanding disaster and disasters’ impact on gross domestic product (GDP) chronic risk is 20 times higher in developing countries than in developed countries.13 These impacts pose a Disaster risk is primarily the product of hazard fundamental threat to the World Bank Group’s exposure and vulnerable construction. In the 25 goals of eradicating poverty and boosting shared years since the initiation of the United Nations prosperity. International Decade for Disaster Reduction Current development patterns contribute to the (UNIDNDR 1990-2000), the expansion of disaster expansion of hazard and vulnerability factors risk due to unsafe development has far outpaced and hence to the expansion of disaster risk. With efforts to contain or reduce it. regard to the generally accepted phenomenon of Over the past 20 years, disasters and natural accelerating climate change, it is clear that CO2 release is related to an increase in the frequency hazards have affected 4.4 billion people, claimed and severity of hydro-meteorological hazards. As 1.3 million lives, and caused $2 trillion in economic populations and urban centers are increasingly losses.11 These disasters have disproportionately exposed to hazards, extreme geophysical and impacted the poor and the marginalized. hydro-meteorological events are causing greater In terms of human lives lost, low- and low-to- loss of life and property. The concentration of middle income countries have suffered 85 percent populations in vulnerable informal settlements 20 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Introduction i through unregulated urbanization may be the building code implementation. As such, the report greatest contributor to the rapid growth of disaster outlines a proposed programmatic approach risk. Currently, some 1 billion people live in consistent with the priorities set out in the Sendai informal settlements; by 2020, nearly 1.5 billion Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. people in the developing world will live in slums. By 2040, cities will be home to the majority of people A mandate to act now who earn less than $1 per day.14 On March 18, 2015, at the Third UN World Vulnerable populations do not only suffer the Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, prospect of catastrophic events, they also suffer representatives from 187 countries adopted the from the more insidious and distributed losses Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015- of chronic risks, which kill thousands in fires 2030,16 making it the first major agreement of the and spontaneous collapse of poorly designed or post-2015 development agenda. The Framework defectively constructed buildings. includes four priorities for action: Building codes and land use regulation have a • Priority 1: Understanding risk crucial (and thus far insufficiently appreciated) • Priority 2: Strengthening disaster risk governance role to play in investment programs for reducing to manage disaster risk disaster and chronic risk. To be effective, however, • Priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction building codes and standards must be part of a for resilience larger “culture of safety” that includes engineering • Priority 4: Enhancing disaster preparedness for education and construction skills training as well effective response and to “build back better” in as legislation, support for implementation, and recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. enforcement strategies.15 Each of the four priorities for action references building and land use regulation development and Objective implementation as a key element of disaster risk reduction. Specifically, clause (h) under Priority The objective of this report is threefold. 3 states that to meet the framework’s goals, it is First, it will demonstrate how implementing and necessary complying with building and land use regulation can reduce disaster and chronic risk and contribute “to encourage the revision of existing or to resilient construction. The potential for the development of new building codes enhancing building regulatory capacity in low- and and standards and rehabilitation and middle-income countries is a particular focus. reconstruction practices at the national or local levels, as appropriate, with the Second, it will explore the feasibility of using aim of making them more applicable in building and land use regulatory implementation to the local context, particularly in informal promote public health, safety, and risk reduction, and marginal human settlements, and with a focus on rapidly expanding urban areas. reinforce the capacity to implement, Third, it will call for a renewed and internationally survey and enforce such codes, through coordinated effort aiming at promoting disaster an appropriate approach, with a view to risk reduction through efficient and effective fostering disaster-resistant structures.” 21 22 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE BOX I.1 — Six sets of actions supporting the development of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction agenda in the field of building regulations 1. Mobilize financing and incentive mechanisms from support 4. Measure progress with specific indicators. institutions with educational programs through collaborations with the private sector. 5. Conduct mapping of regulatory capacity at all levels 2. Prioritize investment into the regulatory capacity at the local level. 6. Carry out efforts to increase regulatory compliance and improved resilience strategies within the construction industry. 3. Develop effective building codes, standards, and guidelines for new construction and the existing built environment, including collation Source: Concluding statement of Building Code Working Session, of transparent data resources. Third UN Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, Sendai, Japan, March 14-18, 2015. A key outcome of the Sendai conference was Key factors contributing to captured in a statement from its organizers after a session on the role of building regulation in the expansion of disaster risk DRR. The statement encouraged the international community to adopt a proactive agenda to develop Several factors have contributed to the growth of regulatory capacity. Furthermore, it offered six disaster losses and the continued growth of disaster practical actions to help move beyond the broader and chronic risk. objectives of the _Sendai Framework_ to more tangible measures to reduce risks in the built Rapid urbanization without environment (see Box I.1). effective regulation Urbanization continues to concentrate people and This positive outcome drew upon a multistakeholder the urban systems they depend on. The world will review of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA)’s witness the construction of 1 billion new dwelling progress, which was prepared for the United units by 2050 and a doubling of urban building Nations General Assembly in May 2014. The review stocks in the next 20 years.18 Some 60 percent of emphasized the need to enhance good practices in the area expected to be urban by 2030 is in Asia,19 disaster risk reduction, including standards setting and much of this area will likely be subject to for building codes, land use, and preparedness.17 natural hazards. As the Sendai outcome and its foundations in the The developing world has witnessed massive HFA review suggest, there is a strong international rural-urban migration over the past century. This consensus for exploiting the full potential of dramatic increase in urban populations has largely effective building regulations in reducing risks. taken place without the benefit of building or land This goal can be accomplished through renewed use regulation. Consequently, the percentage of the investment in regulatory capacity and functioning population in vulnerable buildings on hazardous governance mechanisms. Insofar as it calls for an sites has expanded. For example, the number of innovative international approach to disaster risk people likely to be exposed to tropical cyclones and reduction, the Sendai Framework for Action agenda earthquakes in large cities will more than double provides a robust platform for action in the 15 years by 2050—from 310 million to 680 million and from to come. 370 million to 870 million, respectively.20 Introduction i Climate change out of poverty through access to jobs, education, and technology. However, this growth correlates Weather-related disasters affect developed and with a significant increase in urban risks in the developing countries, with highest impacts in built environment—risks that can seriously erode middle-income countries. The largest coastal cities the path out of poverty for millions. Over 103 could experience combined disaster losses of $1 million new slum dwellers have been added to the trillion by mid-century, as climate change resulting global population between 2000 and 2012,22 and a from increased greenhouse gas emissions has majority of them are settled in disaster-prone areas. increased the intensity and frequency of severe weather and related events (hurricanes, flooding, Rapidly expanding urban areas are frequently mudslides, and so on). By 2030, there will likely be established informally, without the benefits of 325 million poor people in Sub-Saharan Africa and risk reduction and guidance from building or land South Asia, and they will be vulnerable to weather- use regulations. Informal settlements often give related events.21 rise to slums that suffer from overcrowding and a lack of basic urban services, including clean Growth of informal settlements water, sanitation, electric power, employment, Urbanization has been a significant engine of access to transportation, and access to health and economic growth, extracting millions of people educational facilities. FIGURE I.2 — Annual rate of urban expansion by country (2000-10) Source: East Asia’s Changing Urban Landscape: Measuring a Decade of Spatial Growth, 2015, World Bank 8% Urban Spatial Expansion (%) 7% Average Annual Rate of 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% ar R a a m lia es e a nd a p. ia p. an or di in si Ko hin PD es Re Re na m go in p la ay bo Ch ap Ja . P yan on pp ,C ai et on o a, s al m ng Th e’ La Vi d ili re an M M Ca M pl In Ph Si iw eo Ta m De a, re Ko 23 24 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Failure to apply knowledge to practice in California provided data from instrumented buildings that supported significant improvements Our understanding of disaster and chronic risk has in seismic building codes, and eventually led to benefited from recent developments in science the creation of the National Earthquake Hazards and engineering. For example, in the past 20 years, Reduction Program (NEHRP), which conducts significant advances in the natural sciences have earthquake research and its application to made possible the characterization and mapping code improvement. of hazard events. Hydrological, meteorological, and geophysical hazards can now be charted in The primary way that new scientific and terms of frequency, intensity, and location. The engineering knowledge gets applied to design world has also witnessed the rapid expansion and construction is through building and land of instrumentation in modeling and mapping use regulatory regimes. However, where building for seismic micro-zonation using geographical and land use regulatory systems have been largely information system (GIS) technology. This is absent or neglected, there has been little benefit an important step toward improved seismic risk from scientific and engineering advances in analysis and mitigation. improved building safety. In addition, engineering research has considerably Globally, there has been very limited investment improved understandings of material and structural in increasing building regulatory capacity for performance of buildings and infrastructure; this disaster loss reduction. Between 1991 and 2010, is useful in evaluating seismic risks. Strong motion the international community committed just over instruments placed in buildings measure how the $3 trillion in development assistance. Of this, structures respond to earthquake-induced ground $106.7 billion was allocated to aspects of disaster motion. Therefore, when strong earthquakes resilience, primarily to post-disaster relief and occur, new data are gathered that enable engineers recovery; only $13.5 billion was allocated to risk to improve structural and building code design reduction measures. For every $100 spent on requirements. The 1971 San Fernando earthquake development aid, just 40 cents have been invested FIGURE I.3 — Disaster financing as a proportion of total international aid, 1991-2010 FUNDING FOR NATURAL DISASTERS $106.7 billion TOTAL INTERNATIONAL AID $3.03 trillion 12.7% $13.5 BILLION DISASTER RISK REDUCTION 21.8% $23.3 BILLION RECONSTRUCTION & REHABILITATION 65.5% $69.9 MILLION EMERGENCY RESPONSE Introduction i FIGURE I.4 — Fire events & regulatory response in New York City (1776-2000) Major Fire Events in New York City Fire destroys Second Third Twin Triangle Shirtwaist Blue Angel Other ¼ of the city great fire major fire tragedies Factory fire Night Club fire fire incidents 1776 1835 1845 1860 1911 1975 1998 1815 1862 1871 1882 1913 1916 1970 1990 Bans wood frame Creates Improves Sprinklers Exit and Outside Sprinklers for other fire escapes fire escapes fire doors stairs classes of buildings Building Code Response in disaster loss reduction. Flood prevention Incremental development of measures accounted for more than 90 percent regulatory capacity of all disaster risk reduction expenditures.23 This The implementation and expansion of building unbalanced distribution of funding has constrained and land use regimes in developed countries has the growth of institutions and tools needed evolved incrementally over time. This process to promote safe development and resilience, has created increasingly resilient systems able to specifically through the application of scientific sustain chronic and exceptional risks. and engineering knowledge. The city of New York was devastated by fires three times in the late 18th and early 19th Successful risk reduction centuries. Each major incident contributed to a in developed countries greater understanding of fire hazards and urban based on building and land vulnerability. The regulatory institutions of the city served as the repository of this knowledge and, use regulation through code development and implementation, were able to improve building practice for fire In developed countries, successful mechanisms resistance in small and incremental steps. Through of risk reduction and hazard adaptation have an institutionalized regulatory process, these relied in large part on effective and efficient accumulated responses contributed to collective regulation. Regulations have dramatically reduced knowledge and experience in the form of building the incidence of urban conflagration and epidemic codes that reduced the incidence of fires over disease over the past two centuries. The proximity time. As shown in Figure I.4, the occurrence of and density of urban development in Europe and fire events in the city has been closely linked to a North America made this elaboration of regulatory continuous, dynamic, and incremental process of measures necessary. regulatory responses to evolving risks and practices 25 26 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE in construction. Today, with a sustained rate of less In 1971, the 6.5-magnitude San Fernando than 1 fire death per 100,000 inhabitants, New York earthquake struck the Los Angeles metropolitan City is one of world’s best-performing cities.24 area. Two hospitals suffered major damage. In response to this experience, in 1983 the legislature The history of seismic risk reduction in California passed the Alquiste Hospital Seismic Safety Act, offers a compelling example of an incremental which increased design requirements for new regulatory response expanded and improved hospital construction and set a deadline for the over the last 110 years. The 1906 San Francisco seismic retrofit of all existing hospital buildings. earthquake stimulated the development of The act also established the Seismic Compliance seismology and earthquake engineering through Unit in the Office of Statewide Health Planning research and testing. Subsequently, the 1927 and Development. Experience from frequent Uniform Building Code provided the first seismic events has contributed to continuous comprehensive earthquake design provisions. In improvement of seismic codes and resulting 1933, a 6.2-magnitude earthquake struck Long building performance in earthquakes. In sum, Beach, California, and many of the unreinforced- California illustrates the evolutionary and dynamic masonry schools in the city suffered significant process of regulations with no definite end in sight. damage. Impressed with the loss of life that might These regulations for schools and hospitals remain have occurred if schools had been in session, the in a state of evolution today as engineers learn new California legislature quickly passed the Field Act. lessons from earthquakes around the world. This legislation required special earthquake design for public schools in addition to strict plan review Regulatory process is accomplished at a very and site inspection for all new schools by the small percentage of total construction costs. In Office of the State Architect. No school building in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and California has collapsed in an earthquake since the Development (OECD) countries, the added cost of implementation of the Field Act. a functioning permitting and inspection system is about 1.7 percent of total construction cost. FIGURE I.5 — Seismic events & regulatory response in California San Fernando Major Seismic Events San Francisco earthquake Long Beach earthquake, M-6.2 earthquake, M-6.5, Los Angeles in California 1906 1933 1971 Building Code Response 1906 1927 1933 1983 Beginning of Uniform Field Act Alquiste Hospital development Building Seismic Safety Act of seismology Code & earthquake engineering Introduction i The cost of establishing and maintaining a Key priorities functioning regulatory system is dwarfed by the potential cost of disaster losses. Haiti suffered This report presents a set of interrelated, actionable losses equal to 120 percent of the country’s GDP priorities for risk reduction. These priorities set after the devastating earthquake of 2010. Typhoon boundaries for the discussion and provide the Yolanda displaced 4 million people, destroyed framework within which recommendations are half a million houses, and pushed more than 2.3 articulated. They have informed the outline of the million people back into poverty after hitting proposed program developed in the last chapter. the Philippines; consequently, the poverty rate increased nearly 15 percent.25 Similarly startling Focusing on building regulatory regimes. /// /// statistics apply to many more countries worldwide. Building and land use regulations are closely intertwined and cannot readily be treated as Tangible return on investment separate issues. However, this report places primary Studies conducted in countries with more emphasis on building regulatory regimes, with established building regulatory regimes specific focus on the core implementation activities consistently show that the benefits of up-to-date of plan reviews, inspection, and compliance building codes outweigh any increase in compliance assurance. These activities have received little costs: attention in the context of DRR. • A study done by the U.S.-based Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) Recognizing the larger regulatory “ecology” /// found that losses from Hurricane Andrew, which that supports effective building code hit the states of Florida and Louisiana in 1992, implementation. Beyond the core activities of /// caused more than $20 billion in insured damage. a building code regime, there are contributing This loss would have been reduced by 50 percent organizations, regulatory mechanisms, and for residential properties, and by 40 percent institutions that are essential to achieving for commercial properties, if the structures had compliant, safe construction. This report been built in accordance with Florida’s 2004 acknowledges the important role of these statewide building code.26 institutions, which may include educational and • Another IBHS study following Hurricane training institutions for the building professions; Charley, which hit Florida in 2004, found that accrediting bodies for professional education conformance to current building codes reduced and building control; certification processes for the severity of losses by 42 percent and loss contractors and developers; mortgage lending frequency by 60 percent.27 institutions qualified for building finance; property Effective building regulatory systems bring about insurance and professional liability insurance for other societal benefits beyond chronic and disaster building professionals; and free and functioning risk reduction. They can offer high returns for real estate and land markets. other policy objectives. Energy efficiency and CO2 reduction from buildings is a good case in Addressing the needs of the poor and /// point: a task force led by the Institute for Market vulnerable, primarily in low- and middle- Transformation found that every dollar spent income countries. This report’s focus on the /// on code compliance and enforcement returns poor and vulnerable does not attempt to exclude six dollars in energy savings, equivalent to a 600 other segments of the population. Rather, it seeks percent return on investment over time.28 to address those with the least capacity to cope 27 28 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE with disaster losses. Between 1980 and 2012, low- Ensuring the safety of new construction /// income countries have accounted for only 9 percent and reducing the risk of existing vulnerable of the total number of disasters while incurring settlements. A primary objective of this report /// 48 percent of fatalities. Where regulations are 29 is to limit the expansion of disaster and chronic unknown, unenforceable, or excessive, most people risk in future urban development. This is critical tend to disregard them, especially the poor. This insofar as building stocks are projected to double report advocates large-scale educational efforts in the next 20 years in most emerging economies. and implementation mechanisms appropriate and Clearly, initial location of safe sites is inherently affordable for the disadvantaged. These efforts more economical than relocation of existing should accommodate incremental regulations settlements. Likewise, achieving disaster resistance compatible with incremental construction, in new construction is considerably less costly than adequate incentives, and compliance support. retrofitting existing vulnerable construction. Introduction i However, given the populations currently exposed approaches (such as guidance and educational to disaster risk through existing unsafe structures, effort typically deployed in reconstruction it is imperative that provisions for assessment programs), which should be adopted and and strengthening of vulnerable buildings be institutionalized in the mainstream permanent incorporated in the building regulatory initiative. regulatory system for an effective reduction of risk. Realistically, risk reduction in existing buildings Leveraging private sector to expand will be a long-term priority. The development /// technical resources for code of regulatory capacity for new construction will implementation. Experience over the past provide a foundation for extending regulatory /// 20 years points to the potential of leveraging practice to the inspection and improvement of private sector technical resources to expand existing buildings. the volume and quality of technical manpower Creating the structure to deal with chronic /// available for review and inspection functions. health and safety risks. This report takes the /// Modern compliance assistance tools include view that a building code regulatory regime will improved information systems on risks, building address disaster risks effectively by extending the practitioners’ qualifications, private third- institutional capacity needed to address everyday party checks, and the use of insurance-based hazards such as fire, building collapse, epidemic, incentives to reinforce building controls. This and unhealthy living conditions. Investment in report highlights promising experience in this building regulatory capacity has the double benefit area that contributes to increasing the capacity of of reducing loss to both chronic and disaster regulatory systems and reducing risks. Far from risks. Chronic risks and smaller disasters (such as a deregulation agenda, this approach promotes individual building collapses) are rarely recorded, collaboration with private sector expertise that and rarely covered by government, insurance, can strengthen the ability of building regulatory or international assistance. The cost of impacts authorities to protect public health and safety and associated with small disasters tend to be absorbed enhance resilience. directly by low-income rural and urban households. They are estimated to be 50 percent higher30 than those formally recorded in global databases. Promoting compliance rather than police /// enforcement. Although a traditional police /// enforcement function is necessary, it should be actively complemented by positive technical assistance and support for voluntary code compliance. This is particularly true for efforts to expand regulatory service delivery toward the informal sector. This report argues that understanding behavioral drivers, and the set of values upon which an effective regulatory system should be established, is crucial. In concrete terms, an effective reduction in risk requires more innovative and nontraditional regulatory 29 30 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Report structure Chapter 1 examines the current status of building /// /// and land use regulatory capacity in a range of low- and middle-income countries. Specific weaknesses are identified, described, and illustrated in brief case examples. Chapter 2 outlines the basic components of /// /// established building regulatory regimes and illustrates essential regulatory functions. Chapter 3 presents recommendations for /// /// building regulatory development and reform based on problems identified in Chapter 1 and successful regulatory reforms identified in Chapter 2. This chapter sets forth an agenda to establish an effective building code regulatory reform articulated around seven major streams of action. Chapter 4 outlines an integrated programmatic /// /// approach for building regulatory capacity development. This approach is consistent with challenges examined in Chapter 1 and with recommendations proposed in Chapter 3. 01 Chapter Why Building Regulation Has Not Reduced Disaster and Chronic Risk in Low- and Middle-Income Countries of hazard exposure and unsafe construction, has 1.1— Introduction led to dramatic expansion of vulnerable informal settlements. The failure of building regulation Obstacles to effective building and land has been compounded by poorly formulated and use regulation poorly communicated building codes. Corruption In recent decades, the acceleration of rural-urban of local regulatory authorities, where they do migration in the developing world has taken place exist, has further compromised implementation largely in the absence of effective building or of and compliance with safe building and land use land use regulation. Without regulatory guidance, principles. urban development has extended to hazardous sites and resulted in the construction of unsafe Physical and social challenges arise in the context vulnerable settlements. This process of unregulated of high-density urban development that require urbanization has led to a vast expansion of global more sophisticated institutions to manage the chronic and disaster risk. balance between individual interests and the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The failure of regulatory policy and implementation in low- and middle-income countries has several For millions of people in the developing world, principal root causes. Rural poverty has been a it is primarily the absence of relevant codes and major reason for urban migration, and poverty building standards, their inability to get their own has been a limiting factor in the development voices heard in standards development processes, of municipal services and regulatory capacity. the high costs of compliance, and the lack of a Disregard for factors contributing to risk, in terms supportive institutional environment which have 31 32 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE impeded their access to safer and affordable between 2000 and 2009, they were responsible housing in the formal sector. Consequently, for 60 percent of disaster-related deaths in low- although building regulation has successfully and middle-income countries.31 Experience in the reduced risks in developed countries, incomplete developed world has demonstrated that improved and inept regulatory implementation has often design, construction, and regulatory compliance failed to protect lives and property in low- and can dramatically reduce life loss in earthquakes. middle-income countries. In 2003, the Paso Robles, California, and Bam, Iran, The purpose of this chapter is to describe the earthquakes had similar magnitudes and struck major systemic problems and failures in regulatory within three days of each other. However, the governance typically experienced in the extension death toll was two in Paso Robles as opposed to of regulatory capacity in low- and middle- more than 40,000 in Bam—nearly half the city’s income countries. population.32 Deadly consequences of Failure to address both chronic and unregulated development disaster hazards Earthquakes are the deadliest natural hazard. In Chronic health and safety risks related to the built developing countries, earthquake-induced building environment are underestimated and overlooked. collapse kills many people. Although earthquakes Efforts to reduce the risk of large-scale acute events represented only 4 percent of all hazard events may have obscured appreciation for the cumulative Paso Robles, California Bam, Iran Population: 30,000 Population: 90,000 December 26, 2003 December 23, 2003 6.6 Richter 6.5 Richter FIGURE 1.1 — A Tale 2 died 40,000 died of Two Cities: The Paso Robles and 46 buildings damaged 50 percent of city destroyed Bam earthquakes of Code-compliant buildings Buildings not code-compliant December 2003 Designed & built by qualified professionals Informal buildings Source: Noel DaCosta, August 2010 01 Chapter impact of smaller chronic risks. Increasing the prospect of catastrophic loss due to major evidence suggests that the cumulative impacts of disasters, they are also impacted by the continuing, everyday hazards resulting in small, isolated losses distributed losses of chronic threats to health and are actually greater than those of large disasters safety such as fire, building collapse, epidemic, and resulting from extreme events.33 The impacts of unhealthy living conditions. the former in low- and middle-income countries This chapter describes the major factors limiting are widely misjudged, as they regularly fail to meet the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory the criteria to qualify as “disasters” in international frameworks in low- and middle-income countries. databases. As a result, a significant share of These factors are related to damage to housing, infrastructure, and low-income households affected by small disasters has been • Land use and land governance systems; poorly reported and overlooked.34 • Legislative foundations for effective building code regulatory regimes at the national level; Research on African urban centers points out • Building code design and building standards that a large share of the urban flooding, disease, of construction; epidemics, large shack fires, and spontaneous • Building code administration and institutional building collapses that occur in these locations capacity; and does not get recorded as a “disaster” in national and international databases.35 Each year, however, • Concerns with the efficiency of building code thousands are killed by fires in, or the spontaneous implementation procedures. collapse of, poorly designed or constructed buildings or structures. In India, for example, 2012 saw more than 2,600 deaths and 850 injuries as a result of the spontaneous collapse of 2,737 building FIGURE 1.1 — The accumulation of chronic risk: The structures.36 case of Kenya In April 2013, an eight-story commercial building MAY 1996: Collapse of a supermarket JANUARY 2010: Two-story building during heavy downpour collapse in Kiambu collapsed in Bangladesh, killing over 1,200 people. This is another tragic reminder of the MARCH 1998: Fire in dormitory JUNE 2011: Collapse on Langata need to improve the safety of people from chronic building in the Coast Province Southern Bypass Building in Nairobi risks. The benefits of building safety regulation MARCH 2001: Fire in similar incident DECEMBER 2014: Five-story building should expand to all vulnerable segments of in Machakos District collapse in Makongeni the population. MARCH 2004: Destruction of JANUARY 2015: Six-story residential A particularly strong pattern of cumulative fires Planning Department by fire building collapse in Nairobi and spontaneous building collapses in Kenya over JANUARY 2006: Collapse the past 20 years further illustrates how systems of two-story building under of building code regulation can fail in dealing construction in Nairobi with chronic risks. Over time, the aggregated loss JULY 2006: Major fire in of human lives and infrastructure in some of the industrial building in Nairobi largest cities in Kenya can be unequivocally defined as a disaster of significant proportions. APRIL 2008: Building collapse in Nairobi Failure to develop and implement effective building OCTOBER 2009: Three-story regulation is doubly detrimental to low- and building collapse in outskirts middle-income countries. Not only do they suffer of Nairobi 33 34 Unavailability of affordable, safe, and accessible land A critical factor forcing many urban dwellers into the informal sector is the extreme scarcity of land, which leads to prices that are unaffordable—not only to the poor, but also to the middle class. Land is now under pressure everywhere as a result of increased demand and speculation. There are two major consequences related to excessive and speculative land prices. First, for low-income people, the very high price of buying or renting a piece of land absorbs the bulk of financial resources available for housing. This in turn limits their capacity to invest in safer building materials, construction, and skilled laborers, even where these would be available at a reasonable 1.2— Failures of urban price. land management Second, a significant portion of the population cannot afford formal land tenure and thus are The provision of safe land is the most vital step forced to choose informal land markets. In the that local governments can take toward controlling Philippines, for example, high land prices are disaster and chronic risk in urbanizing areas. It considered one of the main reasons driving requires regulatory mechanisms enabling the urban about 40 percent of people to live in informal poor to access land that is not in high-risk areas as settlements. A detailed investigation found well as regulations that allow for tenure security, that the average cost of a house in an informal both for business and housing, in an affordable settlement costs roughly 10 percent of the price of manner.37 a comparable unit in the formal sector.38 In dysfunctional regulatory systems, however, land As a consequence of this significant price management policies have typically failed to ensure difference between formal and informal housing, land access, to link advances in hazard mapping with effective building code implementation, and to both low- and middle-income households have few secure land rights in order to encourage investment options other than informal housing sectors, where and acceptable standards for the environment vulnerability to chronic risks and natural hazards is and for safe construction. As a result, land use considerably higher. regulation has contributed to a shortage of safe land, failed to limit settlement in hazardous areas, Missing linkage of hazard mapping to and often served to exclude a large proportion effective risk reduction of the urban population from legal land and Over the past decade, significant progress has been housing markets. These factors have significantly made in various parts of the world to map hazard compounded risks for very large segments of rural exposure in terms of frequency and severity of and urban populations. expected events. Notably, the Probabilistic Risk 01 Chapter Assessment Program (CAPRA)39 in Central America Consequences of insecure land tenure has developed scientifically-based probabilistic risk assessments for seismic and wind risks. Improved Security of tenure is of pivotal importance to earthquake risk mapping has similarly been the motivate investment in sustainable and safe infrastructure and housing. While there are focus of the GEM (Global Earthquake Model) different forms of tenure, two core components program. include reasonable duration of rights and effective These efforts are essential to risk reduction, but in legal protection against eviction or arbitrary themselves do not achieve that objective. Hazard curtailment of land rights. mapping can only be translated into risk reduction In 2005, an estimated 934 million people lived through the effective implementation of building without security of tenure in informal settlements. and land use regulation. This is why such efforts This number is projected to increase to 2 billion repeatedly fail to achieve their desired goals. by 2030.40 More than 90 percent of the rural The zones of the hazard map must be referenced population in Sub-Saharan Africa accesses land via to corresponding building requirements, and legally insecure customary and informal tenure those requirements must become the basis for systems, as do 40 million Indonesians and 40 design, construction, inspection, and compliance. million South Americans.41 Without secure tenure, Without a functioning building regulatory regime, people fear eviction and demolition of their homes. hazard mapping has no direct link to disaster risk An estimated 5 million people worldwide suffer reduction. from forced evictions each year. Those with no or weak security of tenure are unlikely to invest in Many countries that have benefited from recent improving their homes or neighborhoods. They hazard mapping still lack key components of are even less likely to invest in more resilient effective regulatory implementation and have construction or retrofit. The lack of tenure security therefore not benefitted from any significant is not only related to a deliberate illegal occupation reduction of risk. Such is the case for Jamaica, of land, but is often caused by unpredictable, costly, which has recently completed its first seismic, and time-consuming procedures associated with wind speed, rainfall, floodplain, and land slippage land registration. In Tanzania, for example, there hazard maps. But implementation of the building are an estimated 28 steps which must be completed code is still impeded by delays in promulgating before a plot can be legally developed. In Lesotho, necessary legislation and more effective it can routinely take 18 months to complete the enforcement systems. documentation for a lease before development can even start.42 Similar cases can be cited in many Haiti is also a case in point. After it was struck by other countries. an earthquake in 2010, a seismic zonation study was carried out for Port-au-Prince. However, As a result of widespread failure to provide tenure in the absence of an effective building code security, an increasingly large proportion of implementation, the existing hazard mapping has residents in low- and middle-income countries not yet been applied to effective risk reduction. are not willing to make investments in property Similarly, India has an earthquake risk map and improvement or safety. In sum, they are deprived of a hazard atlas, but not a uniformly functioning the opportunity to accumulate wealth in the form building regulatory regime across the country. of improved housing and security. 35 36 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Incomplete national legislation fails to establish 1.3— Insufficient legislative principles of regulatory implementation and does foundation for effective not designate public and private responsibilities. building regulation at the Moreover, it often fails to connect building regulation with the larger ecosystem of civil, national level commercial, insurance, and criminal law. While the local level is key for implementing For example, the Steering Committee of the and enforcing building regulation, this local Jamaican National Building Code began developing authority must be solidly based on national a new building code for Jamaica in 2002. The legislation that defines the public role in protecting work of the committee initially focused on public health, safety, and welfare in the built strictly technical aspects of building standards environment. National legislation must outline development and adaptation. However, it soon roles and responsibilities of subordinate agencies became clear to the committee chairman, engineer of government and devolve regulatory authority to Noel DaCosta, that a parallel legislative effort was appropriate levels of government. Consistent and equally necessary to establish a complete system of complementary national legislation is necessary compliance and responsibility. In the words of Mr. to establish the legal framework in which building DaCosta: regulation can be implemented. This includes legislation governing the certification of building “Producing code documents cannot by professionals and regulation of the property itself guarantee their usage or effective insurance and mortgage banking industries. implementation. Consideration had to be given to the preparation of legislation, BOX 1.2 — How innovative building control regulations in Turkey were impaired by the absence of sufficiently supportive legal frameworks The government of Turkey quickly adopted Decree 595 in 2000 • No legal requirement was applied to archiving design calculations following the previous year’s earthquake. Although it was not and drawings for later judicial referral if needed, which impaired perfect legislation, many of the decree’s new robust mechanisms conflict resolution. for controlling construction were considered revolutionary by international standards. It was one of the most spectacular and • Conflicts existed between the 2000 decree and the provisions in focused regulatory responses in building code regimes following Turkish legislation regarding the payment of liability exceeding a disaster of this scale. The decree showed an exceptional level of 10 years. attention to delivery and building code implementation mechanisms • No legislation existed supporting the Provincial Supervision for private construction (public institutional buildings were excluded Commission, an oversight mechanism created by Decree 595 to from the scope of the legislation). monitor the firms supervising the new building construction. However, concomitant changes that should have happened in several • No clarity was provided on how the mandatory earthquake provisions of national civil, commercial, and insurance laws were not insurance legislated by the Turkish Catastrophic Insurance Pool introduced. This lack of action served to undermine the reform and (TCIP) would be consistent with the new liability mechanism. bring it rapidly to an end. The decree was eventually rescinded in May 2001 by Turkey’s Constitutional Court. National legislation failed to • Finally, there were serious loopholes and a lack of clarity on bring essential provisions to support the reform initiated in 2000. This qualification requirements for building professionals and the way was reflected in the following issues: new licenses should be granted—a factor compounded, at the time, by obstruction from professional societies. • No oversight of the supervising construction firms was introduced by the new legislation. Source: Adapted from Gülkan 2010. • Public buildings were still to be supervised by engineers from the Ministry of Public Works, but no qualification requirements applied to these engineers not mentioned in the 2000 legislation. training and compliance methodologies. Following the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake in Turkey, In particular, it would require drafting the central government took bold action in promulgating Decree 595 in 2000. The decree a Policy Framework Document, a new introduced profound innovations in building National Building Act for Jamaica and controls, such as an increase in qualification detailed regulations under the Act.”43 requirements for building designers. Additionally, the decree introduced the concept of certified In the case of Jamaica, a technical initiative to private construction supervision firms tasked with develop a local building code (adapted from the verifying design calculations and code compliance International Building Code developed by the of the actual construction. The decree also required International Code Council) gradually transformed building designers to carry mandatory 10-year professional liability insurance for each project. into a more comprehensive effort. This reformed agenda sought to ensure that the new code could be Unfortunately, this impressive reform effort came practically enforced through appropriate national to an abrupt end in 2001. The progress toward supporting legislation and educational programs. disaster risk reduction was opposed by elements of the building and real estate industries, who saw The understanding of the legal support that the new requirements could disadvantage mechanisms for successful building code current professionals and add marginal cost to compliance, as well as the timely passage of new construction. In addition, government efforts enabling laws, can be particularly critical in driving failed to coordinate this initiative with other the success of regulatory reforms. important national legislation. Such action is 37 38 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE crucial; coordination serves to remove uncertainty In Jamaica, it was estimated that only the and establish clear lines of accountability in wealthiest 15 percent of the population could afford enforcement, thus providing detailed qualifications housing that met the current formal planning requirements for building professionals, clarifying and building standards. In Trinidad and Tobago, the commercial status of the newly designated it is estimated that only the top 20 percent of supervision firms, and providing resources to newly the population can afford the median price of created regional construction oversight bodies $21,500 for a housing unit that meets current (Box 1.2). formal building standards. Code compliance is Another form of bottleneck at the national level is not feasible for low-income housing. As a result, not necessarily the resistance of national legislative low-income housing fails to benefit from health authorities to develop underpinning legislation. and safety regulations. This trend is now widely Rather, it derives from delays in organizing the reflected globally.44 required consultations, endorsing legal drafts, implementing regulations by appropriate line In sum, excessively rigorous and unattainable ministries, and completing the legislative process. standards of construction have been a major obstacle for the expansion of regulatory compliance Early in Jamaica’s new building code development in the past four decades. Only relatively wealthy process (approximately 2006), the queue for work coming out of the Office of the Chief Parliamentary urban residents have been able to afford buildings Counsel was 10 years long—suggesting that that meet formal sector building regulations, thus without special provisions, the new Building Act creating cities with entrenched two-tier systems, would not see the light of day until 2016. At the widening social inequalities, and limiting progress time of writing this report, the new Building Act on risk reduction. has not yet been passed by Parliament. Building codes are expressions of both social and 1.4—Inadequate building technical principles. In order to achieve feasible compliance, they must reflect the social reality and codes the material possibilities of the society in which they are to be implemented. Inappropriate transfer of codes from high-income countries Participation in balancing acceptable risk and affordability To a large extent, the normative environment for The code development process in most low- construction, land use, and planning standards in and middle-income countries, where it exists, developing countries has been strongly influenced is typically a bureaucratic process dominated by frameworks introduced during periods of by narrow technical concerns. If the code is to colonial rule. Such codes often set the bar too high be relevant and feasible for implementation and thereby increase the dependency of developing for all elements of the built environment, the countries on imported industrialized building development process must be open to broad participation, with representation from all materials and design practices. Furthermore, these sectors of the building industry as well as building codes frequently create high costs of compliance owners, occupants, civil society, and scientific with a result of driving construction to the and engineering experts. Feasible building codes informal sector. represent a socially acceptable balance between 01 Chapter risk and affordability. This balance should be specific regulatory measures, or they may lack the determined through an open and inclusive process capability to conduct these consultations. that can be accepted as fair and legitimate. A participatory approach may simply be Narrowly framed technocratic regulation can have overlooked, as illustrated by the Zimbabwe example adverse consequences for low-income groups, (Box 1.3). It may also be established without setting unaffordable standards for building necessarily attaining an acceptable level of societal plot size or construction technique. Unrealistic consensus by appropriately balancing acceptable standards lead to noncompliance and defeat of risks and affordability. regulatory purpose. For example, in Turkey, the current legislative Negotiation of code provisions should be based on framework has several provisions regarding a consensus process that represents the relevant multistakeholder participation in building, stakeholders concerned with both the costs and planning, and disaster risk reduction. However, in benefits of safety. The goal should be to balance practice these forums have yielded very modest the costs of regulations with the ability of people results in creating consensus around planning to pay. issues. Following the 1999 earthquake in Kocaeli, the National Earthquake Council was established However, governments at the national and as an independent body to support a large- local levels sometimes lack the capacity to lead scale strategic response to increasing risks. The participatory efforts, and for three reasons: Council proposed a National Strategy for Disaster They may not be operating within a sufficiently Mitigation in 2002 and extended recommendations accountable environment, they may lack the in 2005. Unfortunately, these reports were not political structure to translate social priorities into translated into any decisive action agenda.45 BOX 1.3 — Zimbabwe’s repeated attempts to improve housing conditions through building standards Zimbabwe gained its independence in 1980. One year later, the standards, planning issues, and corruption have contributed to government introduced new building standards with the objective of today’s serious shortfall in the construction of affordable housing in improving the living standards of the population. This, however, was Zimbabwe, where a staggering 1.2 million people are now registered unrealistic, as the minimum compliance levels were unaffordable on the government’s national waiting list for basic shelter. and unsustainable for the great majority of the population. The standards were introduced with good intentions but were driven The case of Zimbabwe underscores the importance of building by a rigid central vision that ignored the economics behind their standards that reflect local building practices and affordability. implementation. When standards are set too high, it is impossible for people to comply. Zimbabwe also illustrates the need to replace top-down That vision was hardly compatible either with local customs or the policy-making processes with participatory approaches. This case absorption capacity of the local industry. It introduced changes demonstrates the necessity of linking the introduction of building without any form of consultation with or broad participation of regulations with training and capacity building and of linking primary stakeholders. regulatory reforms to programmatic interventions. Only when a second review of standards took place in 1992 did Source: IRIN, March 2013. http://www.irinnews.org/news/2013/03/08/ regulatory authorities start to support more participatory and diverse zimbabwes-urban-housing-crisis. programs focused on increasing local capacity and the local relevance of building standards. However, persistent problems with building 39 40 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Specifically, in the area of standards and building “stratification” of technical standards to respond codes, there is a consistent pattern of top- to different levels of sophistication and realities down developments in low- and middle-income in construction. This problem is particularly countries. Technical experts, frequently driven by evident when examining the absence of more the legitimate goal of building by the “best available localized technical standards. If established, standards,” hold sway. However, these experts such standards could support and guide gradual often neglect social and economic considerations improvements in the vast sector of vernacular and and the actual capacity for implementation. indigenous construction. The revision of standards in Indonesia following In addition, the requirements for professional the 1979 earthquake was consistent with the qualification and licenses are problematic. They widespread practice of simply transposing highly tend to be based on professional practice in the sophisticated standards from a high-income developed world and do not entail knowledge country. This transfer failed to recognize the extent of relevant local, vernacular construction. to which the borrowed standards incorporate the Professional qualification frequently requires a unique risk patterns, history, building traditions, Northern-style education, which rarely considers and economic and social constraints of the vernacular construction, even in low-income originating country. It typically confined this countries. As a result, young professionals are important societal choice to technical experts, who often wary of vernacular construction because it did little to consider the socioeconomic differences has not been a subject of their training. Building between Indonesia and the high-income countries research, education, and professional licensing from which the standards were imported. At must do a better job of understanding, improving, that time, authorities overlooked the experience and advancing critical knowledge of vernacular and of local implementers and overestimated their non-engineered structures. own capacity to enforce overly ambitious, expensive standards. Absence of guidance for improved resilience of traditional forms Failure of codes to address locally of construction prevalent non-engineered construction The majority of building codes in developing Building codes transposed from higher-income countries typically fail to recognize locally available settings frequently reference technical standards building materials or prevalent forms of vernacular for a limited range of construction materials construction, such as adobe and non-engineered and methods. Generally, methods and materials construction. (Notable exceptions include the indigenous to the borrowing country are not building codes of Peru and Nepal). Such forms of included. However, indigenous construction construction typically account for 70 to 80 percent practices are particularly relevant for low-income of residential construction in developing countries. populations. Failure to consider improvement of With some attention to proven components of health and safety measures for these construction good construction practice, vernacular buildings types relegates them to the vulnerabilities of the can withstand extreme events and provide their informal sector. inhabitants with durable shelter. Only a minority of established building code It is estimated that 30 to 50 percent of the world’s systems today are cognizant of this issue. Most population lives in earth-based constructions. In of them do not yet offer any adequate range or several developing countries, this type of dwelling 01 Chapter addresses the housing needs of more than 50 understanding and improvement of those building percent of the population and at least 20 percent of traditions. In some cases, indigenous adaptations the urban and suburban populations.46 have proven resilient to natural hazards. The dhajji dewari, a traditional form of timber and Adobe construction is used and will continue to be used in many seismically active countries, in masonry infill construction common in Northern spite of the fact that poor-quality adobe houses Pakistan, has evolved over centuries and exists in do not perform well in earthquakes. In most similar forms in other earthquake-prone countries. countries where adobe is widely used, however, During the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, most of there are no formal building codes or guidelines these structures suffered some damage, but very for adobe construction. This exclusion loses the few collapsed. However, as no code of practice potential for significant marginal improvement of and formal recognition existed for this form of economically and socially feasible risk reduction. construction, donors were initially reluctant to In some countries, such as Argentina and El support the construction of self-built dhajji dewari Salvador, building codes explicitly prohibit adobe in the aftermath of the disaster.48 construction in urban areas.47 By ignoring or even prohibiting the types of Failure of building codes to address construction that low-income groups can afford, the prevalent pattern of incremental codes effectively limit research and development construction for improving traditional techniques, materials Building codes typically fail to recognize the testing, and quality control. Thus these alternative forms of construction remain vulnerable. In turn, incremental process of construction. Incremental this lack of recognition eliminates opportunities construction refers to the gradual step-by-step for technically informed guidance for owner- process in which owner-builders append or builders of traditional structures. In the absence improve building components as funding, time, of regulatory recognition, it is increasingly difficult or materials become available.49 In many cities to access finance and insurance for traditional of developing countries, this phased process of building types. self-built construction is the dominant pattern of The failure to address vernacular technologies residential construction, accounting for 50 to 90 in building codes has been an impediment to the percent of new housing.50 41 42 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Over the past few decades, governments have Lack of quality control for building experimented with many different approaches materials and equipment to deal with a severe shortage of housing—with A critical factor in building performance, aside from mixed results. In Latin America, households that design and construction practice, is the quality were unable to meet housing needs through formal of building materials. Resilient building design sector mechanisms typically resorted to informal is based on assumptions regarding the strength solutions, specifically by obtaining illegally and performance of constituent materials. In order to assure design performance of buildings, subdivided lots and constructing their houses materials must be tested and certified as meeting incrementally. Without the benefits of health and design specifications. Many low- and middle- safety regulation, such informal development income countries lack the network of accredited continues to account for a major portion of the materials testing laboratories necessary to certify housing supply in Latin America.51 the quality of building materials. This testing and certification is particularly important for Incremental construction has been accepted in modern construction materials, such as steel and several countries through various approaches concrete, and more complex building assemblies. within the framework of specific projects, such as However, materials testing can also be provided core housing. Recent affordable housing strategies for indigenous materials and practices. In the have focused on community involvement and 1970s, India’s Central Building Research Institute in Roorkee carried out extensive testing of earthen on encouraging self-help home building and construction materials and applications as the basis renovation activities by households in urban for guidance on non-engineered construction. settlements. However, the building regulatory process has failed to provide guidance for A particular problem in the materials testing incremental construction practices or to provide area is related to the use of reinforced concrete. Reinforced concrete is the principal structural continuing oversight through the extended period material for urban expansion areas around the of construction. world. It allows for the construction of multistory buildings and is deceptively easy to use. The collapse of poor-quality reinforced concrete buildings is one of the principal causes of fatalities in the cities of low- and middle-income countries. Regulated construction requires that concrete samples from the construction site be tested for actual compressive strength in a certified testing laboratory. Without this testing, the quality of concrete construction varies widely and can result in failure during earthquakes. The “as built” does not always meet the design specification for the material. This was the case in Haiti, where, prior to the 2010 earthquake, there was only one materials testing laboratory, which was unable to provide testing for most of the construction in the country. 01 Chapter The mixing of concrete is very sensitive to the testing can determine the tensile strength or proportion of cement to sand to aggregate and brittleness of steel building components. Without to water. Improper proportions and possible accredited independent testing, there is a risk of contamination of sand or aggregates with salt or using steel that does not meet design specification organic material can weaken the concrete product, and may contribute to future building failure. as can inadequate curing of concrete due to The unfortunate string of building collapses in water shortage. The 2011 collapse of the Langata Kenya (Box 1.1) also reveals deficiencies in both Southern Bypass building in Kenya is largely mandating and enforcing these essential tests. attributed to the type of sand used, which was quarry dust. Quarry dust, as the name suggests, is Limited access to code documents or very fine and flour-like. It has no bonding capacity training for code compliance and contains many impurities, which lessen the Builders and homeowners cannot comply with strength of the reinforced concrete. (Conversely, building codes if they are not familiar with them. river sand has small sugar-like granules, which This is a recurring challenge with regard to reaching provide the necessary friction and tightly hold the poor and illiterate builders. Literacy levels among concrete to the steel.) homeowners, engineers, architects, politicians, and builders vary enormously, and a distinction Jamaica illustrates the nature of the challenge. The must be made between the guidance and support Jamaica Building Code requires the certification required by the general public (homeowners) and of four key building materials: cement, aggregate, the various categories of professionals. concrete, and concrete masonry units. But the present Jamaica Building Code is 107 years old, Building and land use regulatory frameworks dating from 1908, and is a voluntary rather than are often written in a language that is difficult to mandatory code. In Jamaica, cement is usually understand, particularly for informal builders and certified at port of entry. Other materials are not low-income homeowners. Regulations must be consistently checked, as site inspection is not precise in order to ensure accurate and consistent mandatory and is rare in practice. The provision interpretation in case of litigation. However, for certification of building materials exists, but compliance cannot be achieved if codes are not is not enforced and is therefore ineffective. A translated into layman’s language and if they are proposed new Jamaican National Building Code, not promoted through effective communications based on an adaptation of the International tools and awareness mechanisms, targeting both Building Code (IBC), would make these provisions building practitioners and the general public. mandatory. As in many low- and middle-income countries, standards exist but are not mandatory or implemented.52 The Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) has the responsibility of ensuring that the materials used in construction meet required standards. Structural steel and reinforcing bar (“rebar”) are critical to building performance. The structural performance characteristics of steel depend on constituent materials and the fabrication process. Materials 43 44 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE basic regulatory services is a function of both the 1.5— Weakness in building pace of development and the country’s level of code administration and economic development. institutional capacity Developing countries have, for the most part, been A fundamental problem in low- and middle-income unable to keep up with the demand for serviced countries is the lack of funding and support for land or to provide adequate basic services to building regulation at the local level. However, even residents of their rapidly growing urban centers. limited resources can be put to more effective use. Some key obstacles have included shrinking central Other forces such as opaque governance practices, government transfers, inadequate local tax bases regulatory capture, and corruption can hold back to pay for the delivery of services to a growing population, inadequate institutional capacity more immediate common sense solutions and to prepare mid- and long-term development contribute to a significant increase of risks in the strategies, and insufficient funding to implement built environment. these strategies. Shortage of technically qualified Few municipalities have complete authority over personnel and funding at local and taxation, and so they struggle to create and sustain municipal levels the capacity to service land and respond effectively Local governments are responsible for approving to a growing demand for new construction. Local development projects and building plans. They tax rates are often set by national or regional are in the front line of risk reduction in planning authorities and, as is the case in the Middle East, and building; they must pass bylaws on building North Africa, and West Africa, property taxes may regulations and prepare land use plans and even be collected by a central authority and only emergency response plans. However, many local partially redistributed to the municipality.54 governments, especially in smaller towns, do not As building stocks in developing countries are have qualified technical staff.53 projected to double within the next 15 to 20 The extent to which municipal authorities can years, the pressure on local governments and improve the supply of serviced land and deliver municipal services to fund qualified building BOX 1.4 — Illustrating the restrained capacity of Lebanese municipalities to conduct building permit reviews and inspections Lebanon illustrates the latter case of low municipal capacity, despite district of Beirut dates back to the 1930s and the era of the French acute seismic risks in the country. Municipalities in Lebanon are mandate. underresourced and unable to adequately perform their limited role in conducting plan reviews and inspections of construction. The very Because revenues are low, municipalities have difficulty covering modest role of municipalities in the building permitting process stems expenses related to inspections and are not able to provide adequate from a decision to centralize responsibilities for building controls salaries to municipal building engineers. This challenge presents within the Urban Planning Offices under the Ministry of Public Works opportunities for pooling of human and physical resources—e.g., and other central agencies. In Beirut, where the municipal office takes municipal unions could take on spatial management tasks—as a way on more responsibility than in smaller municipalities, equipment and of delivering more robust building permit services. These ideas have resources are very inadequate. Storage facilities for filing and the not yet been implemented, despite prevailing seismic risks in the filing process itself are manual. The official land use plan for the local country. 01 Chapter officials, adequately enforce building codes, and poverty, and in low-income countries it may seem manage risks associated with new construction is to be an intractable problem for efforts to create only growing. a robust environment for building regulatory compliance.55 Many countries and cities fail to make effective use of private sector technical resources to augment In its various forms, corruption remains an governmental regulatory manpower. This failure entrenched, man-made failure—one that has constrained regulatory capacity. destabilizes the construction industry, stymies the necessary reforms of building oversight The more direct implication of low municipal mechanisms, and is a dominant factor in the scale capacity is that local planning and building of fatalities in earthquakes.56 The manifestations of agencies are often unable to conduct plan reviews corruption related to the construction sector can of building projects or to carry out building be divided in three major categories: inspections. Paradoxically, there are cases (for • Corruption linked to government contracts example, transition economies such as Tajikistan, • Corruption linked to theft Vietnam, or Ukraine) in which severely constrained • Corruption linked to circumventing regulations regulatory capacity coexists with the execution of extensive untargeted and ineffective building The evidence suggests that combined, these inspections that are not prioritized on risk-based different streams of corruption lead to poor- principles. This points to patterns of lack of quality construction. They also lead to insufficient capacity combined with ineffective use of scarce maintenance, which can significantly reduce the economic return to investments while carrying high control resources. human costs in terms of injury and death.60 Corruption in building control functions Experience in Latin America also points out that Corruption is at the heart of failed regulatory in some instances, opportunistic political figures frameworks, as it undermines all aspects of good have facilitated the occupation of hazardous regulations. Corruption is strongly correlated with sites and unsafe structures as a populist appeal TABLE 1.1— Overview of corruption types and related activities Major types of Most common activities Scale of problem and examples corruption and drivers Manipulation of Manipulating budget decisions, project selection, Transparency International points out in its government contracts tender specification, contract negotiations or 2011 Bribery Index that “works contracts and renegotiations, and procurement outcomes. construction” ranks the lowest out of 19 different sectors, a score consistent with research outcomes from previous years. 57 Theft of materials and Theft of materials and building equipment, In Indonesia, a physical audit of a community-driven other assets especially in relation to public procurement and development program that focused on construction works. found that an estimated 24 percent of expenditures were lost in materials theft. 58 Circumvention of Bribes paid to building officials, inspectors, or In some countries with corrupt regulatory regimes, regulations engineers delegated by public authorities to the proportion of buildings that collapse due to carry out appropriate controls. Bribes paid to inadequate inspections is 75 percent on average, licensing authorities to obtain a right to practice. and conceivably as high as 95 percent.59 45 46 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE to disadvantaged populations. For example, Cerro Norte in Bogota, Colombia, developed mostly as an informal settlement in the 1970s. Subsequently, in the 1980s, politicians lobbied for large-scale regularization programs in exchange for votes, although most of the area was considered vulnerable to floods and landslides.61 This report focuses on the third of the three types of corruption identified above. Consistent sources of data point to the nature and the depth of overwhelming corruption in building controls. The World Bank Enterprise Survey shows that over 30 percent of firms in South Asia and the Middle East are expected to give gifts in exchange for construction permits. In countries such as India, Ukraine, and Yemen, these rates hover in the 60 to 80 percent range.62 The 2008 Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS) covered almost 12,000 firms in 29 transition economies in southeastern Europe and Central Asia.63 The survey suggests that of all administrative transactions, construction permitting is the regulatory area most prone to corruption—more so than meeting with tax inspectors, obtaining an import license, or applying for a water connection. Corruption in building code enforcement is associated with some of the worst possible disasters. Before the 1999 earthquake in Turkey that killed 17,000 people, 65 percent of apartment blocks in Istanbul and other cities had been built in violation of local housing codes. These structures were built by contractors who skipped soil tests, built extra floors, and ignored specific seismic requirements. Turkey had a building code with sophisticated earthquake-resistant provisions prior to the earthquake. This failure was first and foremost a collapse of the code implementation system. It was partly enabled by widespread petty corruption that incentivized building inspectors 01 Chapter to look the other way and let poor building • Reducing safety standards to benefit the practices develop on the ground. These factors regulated industry; led a prominent company specializing in risk • Conversely, increasing safety standards to management and information services to conclude unsustainable or unaffordable levels for local that owners and builders; • Creating unwarranted barriers to entry to protect “almost all of the damage caused by the the regulated industry from competition; and/or earthquake, and almost all of the deaths • Stalling reform efforts. caused by the collapse of inadequately designed and constructed buildings was In Jordan, a comprehensive review of building avoidable.” 64 codes in the mid-1990s was driven by parties within the construction industry, consulting firms, and Recent statistical evidence shows that 83 percent the Engineers’ Association that efficiently lobbied of all deaths from earthquakes in the past three for excessively high factors of safety regardless of decades have occurred in countries considered affordability and implementation skills. The need most corrupt by Transparency International. The to find economically viable solutions was therefore correlation is striking, and shows that the majority undermined by this effort. The introduction of of fatalities from earthquakes can be attributed these new standards created tensions with local largely to regulatory failure and the effects of corruption.65 engineers, who lacked the technical support to meet new requirements. The sudden change in Corruption or regulatory capture? requirements led to increased construction costs In practice, corruption and regulatory capture can and a professional competency gap that resulted in be difficult to differentiate. Regulatory capture cases of building collapse. occurs when special interests co-opt policy makers, and especially regulatory agencies, to further their Regulatory capture can stall necessary and own ends. Regulatory agencies eventually come legitimate regulatory reforms. The promising to be dominated by the very industries they were legislation passed by the government of Turkey in charged with regulating, and eventually to act in the immediate aftermath of the devastating 1999 ways that benefit those industries rather than earthquake introduced significant innovation into the public. building code enforcement with strong potential to Regulatory capture has been at work in various reduce risks in new construction. This legislation areas such as transportation, telecommunications, was opposed by engineers in the public sector who financial services, energy, environmental policy, advocated exclusion of public buildings, restricting and construction. the legislation to private construction. Shortly after the passage of the decree,66 other professional The practical effects of capture in building code implementation can considerably alter regulatory interest groups led an opposition campaign against outcomes and lead to unintended consequences, the enactment of more rigorous requirements for such as: professional qualification.67 47 48 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Lack of transparency in or are able to benefit from land value gains where design and implementation of public authorities are investing in infrastructure. regulatory processes Introducing transparency raises the challenge Defining transparency /// /// Accountability means that regulatory policy of keeping these interest groups at arm’s length For the purpose of this report, development, administration, and enforcement from building oversight processes. The depth and transparency in regulation are subject to public scrutiny so that regulators are sustainability of building code compliance is largely development means that interested accountable for their action. determined by the leadership of political and parties have the opportunity to provide their views to government via Reform experience in building oversight procedures regulatory officials (at both the national and local an open consultation process while in areas such as health, sanitation, and education levels) in addressing the root causes of regulatory the regulation is being developed and demonstrates that a commitment to the quality capture and obstruction. after it is implemented. Transparency of effective public services is determined by the in regulatory implementation also In building control procedures, the deliberate degree of transparency and the existence of a level means that people who must comply choice of not implementing transparent oversight with regulations have access to playing field for all who need to access information. procedures increases the cost of the regulatory these regulations and can readily Closely related to corruption and capture, a approval process. Lack of transparency disengages understand their requirements. pervasive lack of transparency in regulatory developers and owners, who will thus continue to design and implementation repeatedly degrades be uninformed and unable to submit complete and the quality and impacts of building regulations. compliant building project applications. This factor Oftentimes, the failure to introduce transparency can considerably weaken compliance with land use lies in the protection of a system of “insider and building codes. trading” and cronyism. In these instances, only insiders have access to good development parcels BOX 1.5 — Why the success of effective building controls in Trinidad and Tobago hinges on a commitment to transparency The government of Trinidad and Tobago continues to push for the its requirements and approval criteria fully transparent and available adoption of the draft Planning and Development of Land Bill, 2001, on its website. which includes detailed provisions for land use and construction permitting approvals. The bill proposes cutting-edge innovations in However, this innovative process has been weakened by delays from building control procedures. civil servants in development agencies, who resist transparency by postponing the publication of their specific compliance requirements. Among other objectives, the bill seeks to end the bottleneck of permit With no access to this information, the private sector cannot requests at public building, planning, and permitting agencies while participate in building controls, and this promising and novel idea curbing the growth of illegal buildings. To do this, it empowers private cannot be realized. “registered professionals” to establish the compliance of building projects with building codes and regulatory requirements from the This example illustrates how emerging economies can be bold water and environmental protection agencies. in trying to build technically more robust systems of building enforcement. At the same time, it demonstrates how they can fall In order to be effective, it is critical that registered professionals know short of achieving the desired outcomes by failing to address the the approval requirements of various planning agencies. Doing so will transparency element attached to any change process. Transparency allow them to attest to compliance with agency requirements with should be the foundation of a modern and effective policy framework reasonable certainty. Therefore, each agency should have to make all for building controls. 01 Chapter building or occupancy permit are so complex, 1.6— Costly and costly, and time-consuming that they inhibit code inefficient building code compliance. implementation procedures Paradoxically, low enforcement capacity and In addition to issues with design of legislation and scarce municipal resources regularly coexist with governance, building permitting and inspections overelaborated bureaucratic practices, highly procedures frequently raise the cost of compliance restrictive regulations, and redundant inspections. for builders to high and unsustainable levels. Such patterns are seen in developing countries Arbitrary and time-consuming building control with a colonial background and in transition economies. Although the failure to inspect has dire administrative procedures are often perceived as consequences, the opposite case of overinspection the strongest disincentives for compliance with also yields poor regulatory outcomes. building regulations. For example, Doing Business 2015’s rankings on Increased bureaucratic burden construction permit efficiency ranked the Russian does not correlate with more Federation 156th, Uzbekistan 149th, and Moldova effective inspections 175th for the “dealing with construction permits” Unnecessarily complex administrative procedures indicator. In Ukraine, a considerable improvement to obtain land titles and building permits took place in construction regulations as measured contribute to increased construction cost without by Doing Business over the last two years, but clear safety improvement. In many countries, construction-related regulations and enforcement the administrative procedures to obtain a formal remain very inefficient. BOX 1.6 — Tajikistan: So many building inspections, for what result? In Tajikistan, a country particularly prone to seismic activity, 2005, approximately 35 percent of all inspection visits lasted less than regulatory inspections and enforcement are very strict. Reform efforts 30 minutes, a duration that does not suggest that real regulatory have led only to a slight decrease in the percentage of businesses supervision work was actually conducted. inspected at least once a year—from 99 percent in 2002 and 96 percent in 2005 to 85 percent in 2007. In the construction sector, 100 Although inspectors and regulators impose a high administrative percent of businesses are inspected at least once a year, regardless of burden through multiple and random visits of construction sites, they size or risk profile. do not support compliance by educating the public or builders. In the formal building sector, compliance with building code requirements Obtaining approval for a construction project is one of the most is actually low. Builders are often able to minimize costs by using difficult procedures in the country. In 2007, the process of approval the high degree of administrative discretion as a tool for evading for a small shop required no less than 13 steps. Many of these steps regulatory requirements. required additional substeps, resulting in an average process duration of 18 months in total. Fire safety inspections—which are among the While, fortunately, no major disaster has recently struck Tajikistan, most frequent types of inspections in the country—consistently cover future events are likely to cause damage given the patterns of about half of all businesses, with two visits a year on average. seismic risks in the country. Soviet-era construction norms are still in use; though outdated, they should in principle mitigate earthquake However, most of these control activities are of little benefit for public consequences if complied with. In reality, however, building practices safety. In Doing Business 2015, Tajikistan ranked 168th out of 189 countries are often poor, suggesting that builders misunderstand many norms in the “Dealing with construction permits” indicator. Corruption is rife and lack knowledge of technological advances. At the same time, in construction permits and in inspections; over 40 percent of firms building practices highlight a very intensive yet dysfunctional system reported having to pay a bribe for construction permits in 2007. Many of inspections. inspections, in fact, appear to be conducted primarily for graft—in 49 50 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE This is true, in particular, of fire safety inspections. Over 40 percent of businesses in Ukraine are inspected per year, with two visits on average. The most regularly updated indicator relating to safety of buildings is fire safety, and the aforementioned countries are covered by the international statistical compendium compiled by the International Association of Fire and Rescue Services (CTIF). All rate particularly badly in terms of fire-related deaths per 100,000 inhabitants—9.27 in Russia, 6.82 in Ukraine, 4.22 in Moldova, as compared to an average of less than 1 in 100,000 for most OECD countries.68 This data illustrates how countries with very intrusive regulatory systems can still end up with disappointing records on safety.69 In Peru, one of the most important procedures to ensure building safety is the system of technical inspections administered by CENEPRED (the National Center for Estimation, Prevention and Opaque language and limited focus on Reduction of Disaster Risk) and the municipalities. the poor This system is based on comprehensive inspections of a large number of detailed technical Oftentimes, information on administrative specifications, with little attention to systemic procedures and compliance requirements issues or risk-based prioritization. In principle, for building permits is difficult to access or all buildings should be licensed, and every license unintelligible to nonprofessionals. Many builders should require a thorough inspection and be catering to the housing needs of low-income people subject to renewal. In practice, a large number of are not aware of official building requirements and buildings are not considered, or are off the map: related procedures. This is due to both their low their owners simply evade the system and do educational level and their limited interaction with not apply for a license in the first place. Because planning and building agencies. In the housing the system is based on licensing and not on site sector, a major constraint is simply the ability of inspections, there is no way to detect off-the-map owners and builders to understand and conform structures. A large share of buildings is never to official requirements. In India, Tanzania, inspected. As for those which are checked, there is and Kenya, for example, planning regulations, ample evidence that overzealous inspection does not necessarily benefit safety. The government is standards, and administrative procedures are now engaged in a comprehensive reform of the published in English, even though only a small regulatory system, which will introduce a risk- proportion of the population—and an even smaller based allocation of inspection resources for a more proportion of people in low-income segments—can focused approach to urban safety.70 read or speak English. 01 Chapter very high fees for planning and construction permits, as well as other local licenses. In Haiti, five years after the devastating earthquake of 2010, building authorities continue to charge developers construction permit fees equivalent to 16 percent of the cost of construction. This cost can be similarly high elsewhere, reaching as high as 20 percent in Madagascar and 25 percent in Serbia. In the city of Mumbai, India, the formal cost of going through a planning and construction permitting process is equivalent to 46 percent72 of the construction cost, making it practically impossible to comply with prevalent land use and construction permits requirements. This self-defeating response from local governments has failed to generate more revenues, further undermining compliance with appropriate safety standards and forcing development into the informal sector. Excessive permitting fees Failure to mobilize private sector Transaction costs borne by owners and builders resources for code implementation for construction permits and inspections continue to be high in proportion to construction costs in Countries that have the least efficient building developing countries. For example, in South Asia control procedures as measured by Doing Business in 2014, it took an average of 14 procedures and 2015 not only experience the regulatory failures 196 days to get a construction permit. Formal previously described in this chapter; they also have permitting fees averaged a staggering 12.8 percent enforcement systems that rely solely on public of the overall cost of construction in the region. By authorities and municipal building code officials to comparison, the aggregate regulatory fees paid for monitor construction and verify compliance with planning and construction approvals is equivalent other applicable laws. to 1.7 percent of the overall cost of construction in One of the greatest challenges for planning and OECD countries. This fee is only 0.6 percent of the building code enforcement agencies in developing construction cost in Japan.71 countries is their capacity to carry out their Further illustrating the patterns, in some Middle mandate with extremely scarce resources in ever- Eastern, West African, and South Asian countries, expanding and ever-riskier cities. These agencies high permitting fees have become a de facto backup face severe and growing backlogs in planning and tax instrument. In Lebanon, failures in land construction approval, inspection, and permitting registration and cadastral systems have frequently processes. They also increasingly struggle to attract stymied municipalities in collecting property taxes. and retain well-trained and capable engineers and As a result, they compensate for losses by charging technical staff, given a competing private sector 51 52 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE that often offers better pay and more attractive permits. This is explained in part by the absence career prospects. of competent public officials at the “communal” or submunicipal level. As of 2015, there were only Reforming countries have seen the limitations four agents in the ministry to handle a city of nearly of sole reliance on public resources in building 2 million people. This is a paradox at a time when code enforcement. Over the past decades, they private civil engineering expertise abounds in the have pursued different forms of collaboration city, and the national school of engineering of with private building professionals in code Bamako73 continues to enjoy a strong reputation at compliance strategies, such as contracting out the regional level. some control functions and establishing peer- review mechanisms. However, most developing Failure to exploit information and countries have not yet taken this path. They communications technology for have not tapped into resources of skilled private efficient code implementation engineers and building technicians that could be The potential offered by ICT solutions has been productively associated with more innovative code only marginally tapped in the area of building code implementation systems. administration systems, specifically in permitting and inspection procedures. In the city of Bamako, Mali, authorities rely on resources located at the Urban Development Judging by an exhaustive measurement of recorded Ministry for the review of land use and building initiatives in the past 10 years (2005-2015), only 01 Chapter 19 countries have introduced electronic platforms reforms, information technology has a key for building code and permitting administration. role in improving efficiency, transparency, and Out of 19 countries, two are upper-middle-income accountability in building code administration. countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica) and only three are low-income countries (Kenya, The Istanbul Seismic Risk Mitigation and Nepal, Rwanda).74 As of today, only two countries Emergency Preparedness Project (ISMEP), in Sub-Saharan Africa have an operating online initiated in 2005 and supported by the World construction permitting system. Most countries in Bank with a $460 million loan, was a major Central Asia do not have one. risk mitigation project established within the Istanbul Governorship Provincial Administration. The slow adaptation of ICT solutions for building Component C of the project aimed to improve code administration perpetuates inefficient institutional and technical capacities of building practices and postpones such advances as easily code administration by carrying out a thorough accessible archives; coordinated inspections; effort at reengineering and automating processes. integration of land titling, cadastral, land use, and Illustrating the range of issues at stake, the initial building information; improved documentation; diagnostic carried out by the project team pointed and effective mechanisms to relay inspection out dysfunctional mechanisms that could be results back to builders and owners. addressed by ICT solutions. Figure 1.2 presents an Although many of these deficiencies can be overview of these issues and how they could best be addressed through legal, regulatory, and process addressed by ICT. FIGURE 1.2 — A range of procedural and administrative challenges for building permits in Turkey at the outset of the ISMEP project Source: Yelda Kirbay Reis (ISMEP) Identified Problems Proposals for Improvement Lack of monitoring system on work flows in the municipality and Document Management System (E-Document Management System- between municipality and other public institutions (i.e. Building permit TSE 13298) and occupation permit application) Lack of capability on reporting information about status of application Document Management System, Call Center, and Service Desk and public complaints Implementation, e-forms (web) Lack of digital data accessibility (spatial and non spatial) in the Data (spatial) Collection- Update- Digitalization and Integration database of municipality Services and Document Management System Slow and disorganized access to archived documents Establishing Digital Archive System (scanning-indexing and availability of documents in digital environment by municipal staff) Lack of backing-up, storing capacity and information security in the Establishing ISO 27001 information security management system municipality infrastructure and procedures and procurement of disaster recovery systems Disorganized and non-standard work flows related to land use and Analysis and improvement of work and process flows and formulation building permit procedures in the municipality of e-forms 53 54 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Regulatory resources not allocated in Absence of appeal process for proportion to risk exposure dispute resolution Many countries have benefited from recent With regard to land use and building code hazard mapping yet still lack the key components administrative decisions, the absence of of effective regulatory implementation. The independent professional appeal mechanisms zones of the hazard map must be referenced can discourage builders from seeking solutions to corresponding and proportionate building consistent with legal and technical requirements. requirements, and those requirements must By nature, legislative and regulatory provisions can become the basis for design, construction, be open to different interpretations. There is often inspection, and compliance. Without a functioning uncertainty related to administrative or technical building regulatory regime, hazard mapping fails regulations. Differences of interpretation among to convert scientific knowledge into effective risk design practitioners and inspectors or permitting reduction measures on the ground. agencies can result in costly delays. The absence of In relation to chronic risks, building codes may appeal bodies with building code and construction fail to provide a building classification based on expertise can lead to protracted conflicts, stalled occupancy or, in terms of natural hazard risk, permits, and inadequate safety guarantees. they may fail to reference maps of geographic Even where appeal mechanisms are formally in and geologic hazards. In the Comoros, Côte place, they may not be sufficiently established to d’Ivoire, Lesotho, and Ecuador, codes currently offer any effective conflict resolution. In most lack a building classification and related design countries of western Sub-Saharan Africa, such requirements. Thus, building enforcement as Burkina Faso, Mali, and Senegal, the law has agencies and builders do not have a common set provisions allowing (in theory) the appeal of of references to indicate the appropriate degree decisions from the land and building authorities and intensity of regulatory controls for the specific through the formal administrative judicial court class of risk into which the building falls. system. However, such courts have no particular expertise in dealing with issues in construction. Because of rigid and costly procedural rules imposing multiple audits, resolution can typically drag over 5 to 10 years, making this option impractical and undermining the credibility of the formal process of dispute resolution. 01 Chapter regulation), and by Barbados after Hurricane 1.7— Failure to institutionalize Gilbert in 1988 (failure to improve wind design post-disaster regulation requirements). Missed opportunity to introduce 1.8— Conclusion regulatory process for public buildings Though the unregulated informal sector poses The drivers of disaster and chronic risk continue many challenges to public regulators of building to grow, particularly in low- and middle-income and land use, there are opportunities for regulatory countries. The processes of development drive intervention in the area of public sector buildings. populations from rural to urban areas, often to For instance, school building construction is hazard-exposed floodplains, coastal areas, or typically managed by national or local authorities. seismic zones. This rapid expansion of urban Management and funding authority reside with population is taking place without the benefit of governmental entities which should have the regulation to protect the health, safety, and welfare opportunity to exercise quality control over the of new urban dwellers. Unregulated land use allows siting, design, and construction of school buildings. the settlement of hazardous sites, and unregulated School construction offers an opportunity to construction allows the creation of vulnerable develop and demonstrate the benefits of building buildings. Rudimentary regulatory frameworks have regulation and code compliance. This is an been established in many cities of the developing opportunity that has been ignored in many low- world, but they are currently inefficient and and middle-income countries from Haiti to China. largely ineffective. Weaknesses include incomplete legislative and legal foundations, codes unsuited to Inability to take advantage of disaster local conditions and practices, inept administration experience to create permanent of codes at the local level, and failure to train building regulatory institutions and support the building sector to make code compliance feasible. Efforts to transfer code In the aftermath of a major disaster, the need to documents from developed countries have proven improve construction quality and establish an unrealistic, inappropriate, and self-defeating. Major effective building regulatory mechanism is broadly obstacles to reducing risk and improving the quality recognized. Where reconstruction is funded by of construction remain: the failure to address external agencies, some building standards are and improve local building culture, the failure to often imposed as a condition of funding. There establish the legitimacy of the regulatory process is also sporadic training of local construction through open processes of code development and workers in improved resilient construction. implementation, and the failure to invest in or However, these measures are not sustainable support the development of efficient and effective without the institutionalization of a permanent building regulatory capacity. All these have allowed building regulatory authority, one with capacity for disaster and chronic risk to expand in growing effective code implementation and maintenance. urban areas and have done nothing to address risk The failure to create permanent institutions after in existing vulnerable settlements. a disaster is illustrated by Haiti after its 2010 earthquake (failure to institutionalize regulatory function at the local level), by Nicaragua after its 1972 earthquake (failure to institutionalize building 55 Components of a Building Regulatory Framework regulatory implementation and compliance to 2.1— Overview of address chronic and acute risks in construction. regulatory process Recent reviews of the progress under the HFA Building and land use regulation has been key have indicated that while developing countries to successful disaster risk reduction and hazard have improved their legislative frameworks for adaptation in the developed world. Tools for disaster risk reduction, serious challenges remain in implementing effective building regulatory reducing disaster risk and adapting to hazards have regimes to improve resilience at the municipal and been constructed on the foundation of regulatory local levels. measures originally established to deal with chronic urban risks related to fire, structural safety, and The continuing failure of regulatory public health. Over the past century, advances in implementation in low- and middle-income natural science and engineering have provided countries has significantly increased disaster the basis for regulation to reduce larger-scale risks. This report argues that achieving an disaster risk. effective regulatory framework in developing countries requires a broad participation of In the past 10 years, high-income countries technical, financial, and social stakeholders and with mature building control mechanisms have must take into account the reality on the ground. experienced 47 percent of disasters globally, but Implementing good practice should follow a they have accounted for only 7 percent of disaster flexible and incremental process consistent with fatalities.75 The smaller share of human losses in the level of understanding, skills, and income of the high-income countries is correlated with better various target groups involved in construction. 56 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE 02 Chapter The purpose of this chapter is to describe the building code is developed and updated (and how core institutional components of a functioning stakeholders are consulted in the process) critically building regulatory regime. The components and determines if a code is feasible in the local context practices described in this chapter are typical and serves as an effective and affordable tool for of mature regulatory systems that have evolved risk reduction. over an extended period of industrialization and urbanization. Building code development is usually a process led by authorities at a central level yet typically Key components of an effective involves both central and local stakeholders. It is building regulatory regime important that codes be developed with reference to local practice and locally available materials and Three basic components form the core of any that they allow for innovation and improvement in building code regulatory regime: construction practice. Codes provide an important • A legal and administrative framework at the means to communicate new knowledge to practice. national level; The code development process must enjoy the • A building code development and maintenance confidence and understanding of the building process; and sector and the general public. • Implementation of building and land use regulation at the local level. Oftentimes code development involves a central body that has the capacity to develop a model A legal and administrative framework at /// code. This is then adopted by authorities at the national level. This framework includes /// the institutions that deliver enabling legislation the central level or subnational level (state), for the establishment and enforcement of land which has responsibility for local legislation and use and building regulations, including dispute implementation. These bodies also provide the resolution mechanisms. In a broader sense, this mechanism for code maintenance and updating. component also includes other enabling legislation Many codes are model documents developed at that supports materials testing and certifications of a higher level of authority than is responsible building professionals and organizations. In higher- for enforcement. But the level responsible for income settings, this capacity typically extends to implementation and enforcement is also involved legislation on professional liability and insurance in regulatory development and consultation. mechanisms. In some cases, and as a result of Uniform building code provisions at the state constitutional arrangements, enabling legislation or national level contribute to compliance by for building regulation can be organized at the designers and builders as well as regulatory subnational level. authorities. To be effective in risk reduction, building codes must be mandatory, and compliance A building code development and /// must be feasible. maintenance process. This process is essential /// to set minimum requirements for safe construction Implementation of building and land use /// of new buildings and retrofit of existing buildings. regulation. Implementation is essential to the /// An open participatory process with representation actual reduction of risks. Building regulation from all relevant stakeholders is necessary to implementation includes primary activities of ensure regulations that represent the values and preconstruction plan review, on-site building resources of the relevant community. How a inspection, and permitting. These activities involve 57 58 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE FIGURE 2.1 — Components of a building code regulatory regime Core components of a building code regulatory regime Other support institutions Legal and administrative Building code development Implementation Other institutions and infrastructure and maintenance mechanisms regulatory mechanisms • National legal and institutional • A national development process • Transparency in building code • Rule of law infrastructure to design and administration • Mechanisms to ensure code is • Security of tenure support building code locally appropriate and affordable • Process efficiency administration system • Building finance • Inclusion of risk-based approach • Participation of private sector • Insurance • Elements of prescriptive and and compliance checks using third-party mechanisms • Professional education performance-based measures • Professional codes of practice • Periodic review and updating • Risk-based implementation process • Quality control for building materials • Conflict resolution mechanisms Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 “Regulatory Ecology” direct interaction with building designers and security of tenure, and functioning building finance builders and ensure compliance with promulgated and insurance mechanisms. code requirements. This chapter will describe key Important institutions specific to the building practices within compliance strategies that seek sector include accredited building professional to improve quality and compliance with basic education, professional societies and related codes standards of safety. Building code implementation of practice, accredited training institutions for is, in most cases, a function of the local or the construction labor force, licensing procedures municipal government. for building professionals, and quality control processes for building materials. Regulatory ecology: The interdependent institutional context This chapter focuses on the code development, maintenance, and implementation processes. As used here, “regulatory ecology” refers to the context of the regulatory process within a range of complex interdependent and evolving institutions. The core components of a building and land use regulatory framework clearly do not function in a vacuum. In the developed world, regulatory capacity has evolved in parallel with a complex mix of supporting tools and institutions that have provided legal and financial mechanisms, as well as certified technical competence, required to deliver regulatory services. Key elements of this regulatory ecology include the general conditions for commercial development, such as rule of law, 02 Chapter 2.2— Key components of a building regulatory process The generic components of a building regulatory regime described above are essential to the reduction of disaster and chronic risk in the built environment. In many low-income countries, these core components do not exist or are highly dysfunctional. In many middle-income countries, these components may formally exist but remain inefficient and ineffective. As a result, risk continues to expand through unsafe construction on unsafe sites. The specific configuration and location of these components as well as the distribution of responsibility between national and local government and the private sector will vary from country to country. In middle-income countries, the institutions of the regulatory ecology may exist but may not adequately support a robust regulatory function. In low-income countries, the institutions of the regulatory ecology may be absent or largely dysfunctional. Legal and administrative capacity The legislative foundation for a building and land use framework is typically established at the national level. Most countries have basic laws that establish public responsibility to both regulate buildings and establish principles for local implementation and enforcement. Beyond this basic legislation, a robust legal and administrative component at the national level will typically include the following elements: • Comprehensive building codes for engineered structures and appropriate guidance on non- engineered construction for builders and owners. • Programs to institutionalize a regulatory implementation at the local level, particularly in rapidly expanding urban areas. This requires 59 60 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE allocation of resources to train and maintain officials. Requirements for professional qualified staff in local governments as well as the competency are key to improving the quality and promotion of regulatory governance, including safety of construction. transparency and accountability. • Initiatives to continuously inform, educate, Code development and maintenance and collaborate with local governments and Building codes are at the heart of the building municipal authorities implementing building and regulatory regime. Building codes translate societal land use regulations. values related to public health, safety, and general • Initiatives to support hazard mapping and risk welfare into specific requirements in prescriptive assessment, to evaluate building performance or performance terms. and encourage innovation, to support education and training for building professionals and Codes establish minimum physical standards construction trades, and to support public for the design, construction, maintenance, and understanding of the health and safety benefits renovation of buildings. Codes communicate both of regulatory compliance. social and technical values (including implicitly • Establishment of minimum qualifications for acceptable risk) and serve as a mechanism to building professionals, including engineers, introduce new social and technical understanding architects, planners, contractors, and building into building practice. As such, building codes BOX 2.1 — Establishing minimum qualifications for building professionals Sustained effort toward developing minimum levels of technical Second, more established professional licensing mechanisms expertise is one of the major factors that contributes to more robust can support increased collaboration between municipalities regulatory regimes. and private engineers. Contracting out review and inspection activities allows public entities to take advantage of private sector Good practice imposes specific qualification requirements for professional capability. architects, engineers, building contractors, and building inspectors. These qualifications are often designed and administered by licensing Good-practice licensing programs often expect greater accountability bodies of governments, professional societies, or nongovernmental of building professionals and building officials. They tend to be more organizations (NGOs), such as the International Code Council in successful when they establish the U.S. Professional associations of engineers and architects may operate under public right to practice legislation, as in Ontario, • Sound entry-level qualifications based on educational and Canada, or multistakeholder practitioner boards, such as in the state experience credentials and knowledge of building regulations. of Victoria, Australia. • Training and testing to verify knowledge of local codes and Some regulatory regimes have relied on licensing mechanisms for legal context. building professionals. Such mechanisms serve to strategically • Continuing education to remain up-to-date with changing codes structure and expand the technical capacity and responsibilities of the and requirements. professionals. These efforts are important for two reasons. • Mechanisms to prevent licensing from becoming an unfair market First, licensing mechanisms can critically contribute to ensuring entry control tool in the hands of market incumbents. compliance with building codes and standards. For example, professionals who routinely fail to comply with building codes and In some cases, licensing authorities may require building practitioners standards stand to lose their license to practice or can be disciplined to carry professional liability insurance, as is now the case in France, in some other way. Spain, Canada, and Victoria, Australia. 02 Chapter provide a common script for building professionals, and resource efficiency. These aspects of building owners, and regulators. There have been efforts to function immediately benefit building occupants introduce developed-country building codes into and are as important as disaster risk reduction. low- and middle-income countries, but these have met with limited success. • Affordability and risk tradeoff: /// /// Characteristics of effective codes Recognizing the tradeoff of safety and affordability, feasible codes must aspire to provide the highest Experience has indicated that there are several level of amenity and safety that can be achieved basic characteristics of effective codes: with available resources. Unrealistic standards • Participatory development process: /// /// often have the effect of pushing builders into the The code development process should provide for informal sector, so that the benefits of health and open participation from the full range of interested safety regulation are lost. Authorities need to stakeholders, including building professionals, strike the right balance between these competing developers, and materials manufacturers, as well interests and seek a sustainable compromise as representatives of the finance, commercial, and through a transparent consultation of a broad range social services sectors. The development of code of stakeholders. provisions integrates judgments of acceptable Given that the tradeoff between risk and risk and affordability. The process should be affordability is embedded in code provisions, it based on broad societal consensus. It must also be is unrealistic to simply transfer codes from one inclusive of the range of relevant building practices, society to another. Judgment of acceptable risk for including the non-engineered construction of building failure due to natural hazards is subject to the informal sector in addition to sophisticated several variables, including the perception of other engineered structures. An open, consensus-based potential investments in the reduction of other code development process significantly increases risks or in additional opportunities for social and acceptance and compliance by the building sector. economic development. • Comprehensive and inclusive of all • Risk-based code development: /// /// /// aspects of the projects: /// Risk or potential loss is a function of three Building and land use regulation were initially components: hazard exposure, structure developed to deal with a range of chronic hazards vulnerability, and societal consequences of failure.76 including fire, structural collapse, epidemic Risk can be lessened by the reduction of any or all disease, and public health. In the past century, of these three components: building codes and land use management have been • Hazard exposure, usually represented by a developed as mitigation or risk reduction measures ** ** reference hazard map for natural hazards such as earthquakes, floods, and • Potential structural failure under expected extreme wind events. ** hazard loads, which is the primary concern of ** Particularly in urban areas, it is important that the technical provisions of the building code building codes address, in an integrated manner, • Social consequences of structural failure, which ** ** the basic issues of structural integrity; fire safety; are represented by importance factors based on electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems; the building function and occupancy. 61 62 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Although the technical provisions of the building reference in building code forms an integral part of code address acceptable structural performance, the regulatory regime for disaster risk reduction. the external considerations of hazard environment However, these maps are only of value to the extent and social consequences are included in the code in that they are applied through code implementation these two ways: and compliance. Hazard mapping for building codes. The /// /// Occupancy type and post-disaster /// building code specifically addresses the reduction buildings. Another aspect of risk that building /// of potential structural failure or irreparable codes address is the consequence of failure of damage. The component of risk represented specific structures and occupancy types. Codes by natural hazard is typically introduced to the typically assign importance factors to specific code by a hazard map that differentiates zones of occupancy classes such as hospitals, schools, fire expected hazard impact. Risk maps are available stations, places of assembly, and so on. for seismic, flood, coastal storm surge, wind, snow These factors relate to the importance of the load, and landslide hazards. facility in the post-disaster period and to the Building requirements vary according to estimated vulnerability of the occupants. Based on the expected loads. Adequate hazard mapping for importance factor, building provisions may be BOX 2.2 — Building cyclone-resistant housing in Madagascar by linking hazard zoning maps and building code Madagascar is one of the most exposed countries in the world to The new cyclone-resistant codes were adopted by a government cyclone risks, averaging three to four cyclones a year. The 2008 decree signed by all 31 ministries on April 20, 2010, and are based cyclone season, for example, damaged some 6 percent of existing on the codes of Reunion Island and Tonga. The codes are strictest health centers and 4 percent of primary schools, in addition to in Zone 1, where they are set to resist wind speeds of 266 kilometers causing extensive damage to irrigation and transport infrastructure. per hour (74 meters per second). The estimated cost markup relative Many of the structures had already been weakened by poor to a construction standard of 126 kilometers per hour (35 meters per maintenance and past cyclone damage. second) in the Highlands is 14 percent. For traditional housing, the additional costs are 24 to 104 percent. The design has been field To address cyclone risk, Madagascar’s National Unit for the Prevention tested; as a result of the adoption of cyclone-resistant codes by the and Management of Disasters set as its highest priority the Development Intervention Fund (FID), only 1 in 1,000 public buildings development of weather-resistant building and infrastructure codes. built by the social fund has been damaged. The codes were then linked to a national wind map, with design requirements varying according to the design wind speed. The zones Madagascar’s new codes are mandatory for public buildings, such define the design wind speed, and the location of the building in a as schools and health centers, and are recommended for traditional given zone determines the required design. houses in high-risk areas. They are integrated into the urban and habitat codes. If a public building fails, the decree provides for a public The Madagascar Meteorological Department developed its wind enquiry by local collectivities. map based on historical data of cyclone maximum wind speeds for the different zones, and made projections about how climate An innovative feature of the new regulation is that it allows for the change would affect the probability of cyclone landfall and wind possibility of civil penalties for both constructors and inspectors strength. The latter were derived from an analysis of 10,000 simulated in cases of building failure. By making inspection firms co-liable, cyclone tracks. the new regulation requires certified firms to inspect and confirm compliance. It also discourages unprofessional and corrupt practices. The inclusion of the risk of wind speed occurrence is therefore a part of a risk-based code. The structural requirements of the code are Sources: Sofia Bettencourt; World Bank 2013. determined by reference to the wind risk map. 02 Chapter increased over normal construction to further This flexibility is important to facilitate reduce the likelihood of failure. This reference to introduction of new designs, materials, and risk of hazard impact and to occupancy importance construction techniques that can meet safety allows the design, construction, and inspection standards more efficiently and cost -effectively. resources to focus on the areas and structures of In low- and middle-income countries, the greatest concern for society. This prioritization performance approach may be relevant as a means of resources is particularly important in low- and of recognizing the potential of indigenous building middle-income countries. techniques and materials. To the extent that traditional building types can be demonstrated to provide required performance, they can be • Performance-based codes: /// /// considered in compliance. This flexibility may be Building regulations are typically prescriptive; they important as an opportunity to improve safety specifically describe and require the design solution using local materials and building traditions. that meets the standard. Prescriptive codes are However, the performance approach requires assumed to meet the intended safety standard and considerable technical sophistication on the part of can be easily observed and measured to assure designers, builders, and regulators. compliance. Prescriptive codes are relatively straightforward and amenable to review and • Code accessibility: /// /// inspection—but they are also restrictive and may Code documents should be clear and unambiguous. inhibit innovation in design and construction. They should provide adequate guidance to designers and builders to facilitate compliance. In response to this limitation, developed countries Simple and unambiguous code provisions increase are moving toward the use of performance codes. the efficiency of compliance, review, and inspection Performance codes define the performance while reducing potential conflicts of interpretation. objective rather than the specific solution. This means that any solution that meets the Codes should be designed and presented in terms performance requirement can be deemed to appropriate for the user audiences. Sophisticated conform to code. modern structures designed by professional BOX 2.3 — Obtaining market acceptance of innovations through a performance-based building regulatory framework in South Africa In the 1940s and 1950s, applications for building approvals were This system established performance-based criteria against which governed largely by local by-laws in South Africa. By the 1960s, the fitness-for-purpose of the product could be assessed. Thus, standard building regulations had been introduced and were intended Agr√©ment South Africa was established. Among other objectives, to be applied nationally but were not appropriate for all situations the authorities charged Agr√©ment South Africa with facilitating the and system-built state-funded housing encountered a number adoption of appropriate innovation in the industry. of challenges. The South African regulatory system therefore incorporates both Subsequently, the director of the National Building Institute of the a prescriptive code as well as performance-based provisions that Council for Scientific and Industrial Research persuaded the minister recognize more cost-effective and vernacular forms of construction. of Public Works, whose department was responsible for housing construction, that South Africa should adopt the French system for Source: Kraayenbrink 1999. assessing and approving nonstandardized building and construction products and systems. 63 64 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE architects and engineers might require technically complex provisions, while simpler forms of Key takeaway construction using traditional indigenous materials The characteristics of effective building codes are as follows: and techniques should be accessible to builders with less advanced technical training. • They are developed through an open and participatory process that ensures deep and broad expertise as well as a strong buy-in from • Periodic code review and updating: /// /// communities and building practitioners. Code documents must be subject to review and • The standards they set are affordable and consistent with local income levels and resources. updating on a regular basis on a three- to five- year cycle. This regular updating is important as • The risk reduction and mitigation measures are consistent with local skills and capabilities. an opportunity to incorporate new knowledge related to experience of building performance • They encompass non-engineered forms of construction to support gradual improvements in and innovations in construction materials and quality and safety. practice. It is also important as a means to adjust • They establish a proportional response to risk to dynamically evolving social and economic through reference to hazard mapping and conditions in developing countries. prioritization of building occupancies. 02 Chapter planning and land use requirements and construction codes as well as if it meets other • They allow for alternative compliance solutions to support innovations or traditional building practices requirements set by other public agencies. The that meet minimum safety requirements. reviewing authority or accredited agent is expected to have the basic technical capacity to carry out • They are accessible, clear, and understandable for building practitioners. compliance checks at the design stage. • They are regularly updated to reflect incremental Issuance of the building permit. When ** ** progress in surrounding circumstances such as compliance with code, zoning, and other applicable skills development, new technologies and building regulations is confirmed, the local authority materials, emerging risks, and evolving income levels. approves the application and issues the permit. A fee is usually collected to cover municipal costs associated with the time spent by the building official in the application process, the technical Compliance support oriented by plan review of plans, and the various on-site inspections. review, site inspections, and permitting Inspection of construction. Each major phase of ** ** A typical building code compliance system includes construction can be inspected by the municipality a capacity for building plan reviews, building site engineers or their private accredited agents in inspections, and a permitting mechanism. order to make certain that the work conforms to For new construction, there are five steps the code, the building permit, and the approved that will guarantee compliance with relevant building plans. In New Zealand, the building code building standards. for most building types mandates no fewer than seven standard inspections. In other jurisdictions, This section briefly describes these five steps and the decision to carry out an inspection is the practices that form the foundations of their determined by a risk analysis that includes several effective and efficient implementation. criteria, such as the track record of the builder, the type of construction or design, the characteristics Five generic steps for building of the site, and other factors relevant to a municipal compliance assurance risk assessment. A number of states in Australia and Submission of a building application to the ** regions in the U.K. follow this approach. They rely local authority. This process usually requires the ** on relatively advanced information systems and applicant to disclose information about who will means of data collection that are not necessarily perform the work, what work will be done, where available in all circumstances. the building will be located, and how it will be built. Issuance of the occupancy permit. Many Sketches, building plans, proof of land rights, and ** ** jurisdictions mandate the issuance of occupancy any other relevant documentation of the proposed permits following a successful final inspection. work must be submitted for review. The occupancy permit confirms compliance with Review process by the local authority. The ** ** code requirements, conditions for insurance and building official, or an accredited third-party plan financing, and builder liability. Local building reviewer, determines the project’s compliance. authorities usually issue a certificate of occupancy This includes evaluating if it adheres to local in consultation with other public agencies. 65 66 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Five principles of code governance for Process efficiency for building permits and effective risk management inspections minimizes the bureaucracy around building controls as well as reduces the time, Transparency in building code administration number of procedures, and transaction costs ** ** allows for the effective disclosure of critical needed to gain the necessary approvals. information on building regulations. This in turn gives building practitioners and owners the tools to Utilization of private sector third-party ** both comply with regulations and reduce excessive engineering consultants—the practice of ** discretion and compliance costs. contracting out regulatory reviews and inspections to certified engineers—supports building code implementation by expanding regulatory capacity in terms of manpower and technical expertise. Risk-based implementation ensures a targeted ** ** use of code review and inspection capacity on structures that pose higher risks for their occupants and the community. Conflict resolution mechanisms provide remedies ** ** for persons or firms that can be adversely affected by permitting authorities. /// Transparency in building code administration /// At the code development stage, transparency means that interested parties have the opportunity to participate in an open consultative process oriented toward consensus. At the implementation stage, transparency means that owners and builders who must comply with regulation have access to the regulation and can readily understand its requirements. Practically defined, a commitment to transparency is typically reflected by • Making land use plans available to all citizens and placing them online. • Developing process maps or guidelines for the entire construction permitting process. • Providing clear guidelines on complete construction permit application requirements. Enhanced transparency can draw attention to corrupt and opaque regulation or practices and shed light on inefficiencies, thereby encouraging 02 Chapter reform and modernization. A commitment to as a percentage of the total investment cost in transparency involves disclosing easy-to-access, the building. The report found that this cost is on clear, and accurate information. When applied average only 1.7 percent in OECD countries and to building code implementation, transparency rarely exceeds 3 percent in countries with advanced is considerably enhanced through the following building code systems associated with a high degree generic practices. of regulatory compliance. For example, as measured by Doing Business 2014, the cost of regulatory Components of transparency in building compliance in Japan, New Zealand, and Chile was code implementation: less than 0.7 percent in each country.77 • Available guidelines and checklists covering requirements from all regulatory agencies with Maintaining transaction costs of building code different mandates implementation below the above thresholds is • Regulations in plain language associated with permanent or institutionalized practices, including • Regulations supported by user-friendly construction guides with illustrations and examples • A transparent regulatory system. Easy access ** ** to accurate and clear information on regulatory • Requirements for “complete permit applications” that are clearly defined requirements from various approval agencies and building code officials will reduce opportunity • Construction permit application forms that use plain costs typically experienced with more complex language and are standardized and opaque procedures. • Permit applications and associated documentation • A continuous, institutionalized process of ** and plans that can be submitted electronically streamlining and modernizing permitting and • Application status and location available to track inspections procedures. In many jurisdictions, ** online the legislation specifically requires compliance with a wide array of other laws related to Process efficiency and low transaction /// environmental standards, land use planning, costs for building permits and inspections /// national heritage, and so on, in addition to building code requirements. Streamlining Added costs of code compliance are largely a the procedures and placing them online can consequence of increased design requirements contribute, on average, to a reduction of 37 included in technical standards referenced by percent of the time required to issue a building building codes. permit, according to the U.S. Center for Digital Government. Regulatory process costs, which cover review, • The “one-stop-shop” role of the main building inspection, and approval processes, include ** code official or “chief building” official. In best- ** • Formal fees imposed by approval authorities, and practice jurisdictions, chief building officers are • “Opportunity costs” associated with complex, not only responsible for confirming compliance lengthy permitting procedures and the resulting with regulations administered by the municipal delays in making the building available for its building authority; they are also empowered final intended use. to confirm compliance with other agency Since 2014, Doing Business has measured the cost requirements or other “applicable laws.”78 Given of land use, building permitting, and inspections the extent to which building officials rely on 67 68 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE information from other applicable law agencies Third-party review and inspection is particularly to assess and confirm compliance, other agencies valuable as it effectively expands both the quantity should demonstrate that they are transparent and quality of regulatory manpower. Special with respect to their requirements and decision- inspections for highly specialized buildings or making criteria. building components can also be carried out • Time frames for the review of building permit ** by independent inspectors to supplement the applications. In conjunction with greater ** technical capacity of building department staff. transparency, time frames for permit reviews Over the past 20 years, a stronger focus on risks help to limit corruption and increase efficiency. has been associated with a parallel effort to Time frames typically vary according to the seek a significantly larger role for private sector complexity of the application. expertise in regulatory compliance strategies. This • Fee levels that are based on cost recovery. ** ** has offered a source of innovative experience in Fees should be based on the actual costs building control, with useful experience emerging associated with the review of building plans in high-income countries, transitional economies, and site inspection, including overhead costs. and middle-income countries. Appropriate fees charged for construction This consistent trend across countries is such that permitting and building inspection are intended the use of the private sector in compliance checks to cover the costs of regulatory services and not is already institutionalized in countries as diverse to subsidize other municipal functions. as Colombia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Greece, the Arab Republic of Egypt, Russia, and the Philippines. Driving this shift is Key takeaway the realization that building code implementation • Practices that enable efficient implementation procedures with lower compliance costs include can be maximized by adding external resources and critical capacity to resource-constrained • Transparent and easy access to maps and regulatory municipalities. information for applicants and chief building officials. • Streamlined permitting and inspections procedures Private sector participation in building controls combined with ICT solutions. can follow different models of collaboration. It can consist of private sector engineers being • Chief building official’s comprehensive role. delegated by local authorities to carry out third- • Established time frames for the review of building party plan reviews and inspections (as in Germany permit applications. and Austria). Alternatively, builders in some • Fee levels that are based on cost recovery and do not jurisdictions can directly retain¬†approved private fulfill a property tax purpose. independent engineers¬†to review construction plans and inspect buildings during construction (as in the United Kingdom). Utilization of private sector in compliance checks /// /// The latter model involves builders directly hiring Private engineering and architectural firms certified a private accredited inspection firm. In the United by the public building regulatory department Kingdom, Approved Inspectors are registered and provide third-party reviews. Reviews and supervised by an autonomous body. Approved inspections are carried out by professionals who Inspectors typically review and inspect all aspects have been certified in specific areas of competency. of construction. They can inspect work, and issue 02 Chapter plan certificates confirming that building plans Risk-based implementation /// /// comply with the building code, but only for the types of buildings for which they are approved Allocating regulatory resources to maximize risk and registered. reduction provides a rational basis for efficiently and effectively prioritizing inspections in The third model is less widespread and is proportion to risk. This approach is particularly associated with an insurance-driven regulatory important for municipalities and building control regime in which insurance and warranty firms agencies in developing countries that operate engage private inspection firms for third-party with limited funding and must deal with rapidly review. This approach is in place in France and is expanding building inventories. being gradually implemented in Spain and Italy. It is relevant to upper-middle-income countries with The benefits of risk-based building permitting and a preexisting insurance market. inspections include All three models point to innovative ways of • Achieving a proportionate and consistent bringing new expertise into risk reduction without approach for plan review and inspection necessarily relying solely on what may be limited of buildings. municipal technical resources. • Enabling local authorities to focus resources on higher-risk building projects. In Austria and Quebec, Canada, the utilization • Providing authorities with opportunities of private sector technical capacity relies more for process simplification, specifically for heavily on designer and contractor licensing with construction that presents lower risk in the less emphasis on third-party audits by municipal local context. or private inspectors. This approach provides an • Enabling authorities to focus on builders with a even greater opportunity to engage the private history of noncompliance. sector. This practice transfers a greater portion • Shifting the risk, responsibility, and liability back of compliance responsibility to the designer to the design sector, in which private designers and builder. and engineers have the skills, competencies, and experience to function without controls or with Key takeaway limited controls. Private sector solutions for building code implementation • Reducing regulatory demands on builders • Can help municipalities refocus on risks by bringing in relevant and more robust expertise. responsible for construction projects placed in lower-risk categories. • Can substantially alleviate the pressure on public enforcement. • Contributing to lower cost of compliance, from the perspective of both regulators and those • Are increasingly considered and tested in emerging economies and lower-income settings to deal with regulated. critical institutional bottlenecks. • Must be supported by some institutional Applying risk management to construction /// arrangements to ensure relevant qualifications, avoid conflicts of interest, and ensure minimal supervision permit and inspections /// by independent or state authorities. As of 2014, the World Bank counted 88 countries • Follow different modalities and forms of collaboration that have, based on risk exposure, implemented that can be chosen based on the country or city circumstances. simple and fast-track procedures for processing permits for commercial buildings of less than 69 70 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE 1,000 square meters.79 Most of these reforms 2.3— Regulatory ecology: were implemented in developing countries, often catalyzed by the publication of the Doing Business The interdependent report.80 institutional context In a bold reform initiated in 2011, FYR Macedonia The effectiveness and efficiency of building developed a risk-based system linking a and land use regulation depend on a broader new classification of buildings with building institutional context, referred to as regulatory professional classes, allowing designers and ecology. In the developed world, regulatory capacity contractors licensed in only the top qualification has evolved in parallel with a complex array of class to handle the more complex and higher-risk supporting and interrelated institutions. classes of buildings. Not only has this approach been instrumental in reducing state controls, Successful regulatory regimes are closely but it has increased transparency and promoted related to the legal and financial mechanisms more consistent implementation of building of the surrounding economy. A safer built regulations.81 environment depends on general rule of law and public acceptance of public authority to manage Introducing risk-based mechanisms in collective risk. Compliance with public regulation construction permitting and inspections creates tangible opportunities to initiate more in-depth depends on public trust of municipal authorities. administrative simplification programs with Financial mechanisms, such as mortgage lending the aim of using resources more selectively and and insurance, play a critical role in facilitating reducing the administrative cost of compliance. improved construction by funding compliant construction over time, while also quantifying and Conflict resolution mechanisms /// /// monetizing risk for a number of hazards. Conflict resolution provides remedies for More particular to the building sector are a range persons or firms that can be adversely affected by of institutions that contribute directly to both the permitting authorities. These mechanisms promote improvement of quality in construction and the transparency and a level playing field by addressing reduction of disaster and chronic risk. In the areas issues ranging from the interpretation of technical of education and training, there exist professional requirements, to sufficiency of building code and workforce training institutions and bodies design and compliance, to licensing of building that accredit those institutions. There is an array professionals. Conflict and appeal mechanisms of standards-setting organizations related to typically have a majority of legally qualified all aspects of building equipment and building specialists presiding over them to ensure that due processes that provide reference standards for process is followed in a swift and efficient manner. the building codes. Materials testing laboratories exist to certify the quality of building materials and assemblies. The intricate interplay of legal liability, financial risk management, and insurance underwriting serves to reinforce the regulatory process to ensure a safer built environment. Though the focus of 02 Chapter this report is on the necessary formation of the Security of tenure. Confidence in rights of /// /// core components of the regulatory framework, ownership of land and built assets is a necessary parallel development and investment must precondition for interest and investment in advance in these interdependent institutions of the building quality and resilience. Security of tenure regulatory ecology. clearly depends on the rule of law. Selected key elements of this regulatory ecology for the built environment include Building finance. To the extent that safe /// /// construction may require increased initial funding, The rule of law. Building and land use regulation mortgage and construction lending institutions /// /// are the base legal mechanisms to protect public play a key role in facilitating code compliance and health, safety, and general welfare in the built can stimulate retrofitting. Availability of building environment. Regulation for public benefit can only deliver in a functioning legal environment, in finance also provides an alternative to unsafe which rules are respected and compliance can be incremental construction. Building finance depends enforced. on security of tenure and ultimately the rule of law. FIGURE 2.2 — Regulatory ecology and core system elements Rule of law Mortgage finance system that provides capital for safe construction Legal framework for real estate market Framework for secure tenure Legal and administrative component Property tax regimes and tax rates Land valuation mechanisms Conflict resolution mechanisms Professional societies Governance in large cities Building code Public understanding and support for code Implementation compliance as users and citizens development and mechanisms maintenance Framework for public-private dialogue Insurance markets Accredited training institutes Insurance mechanisms in which code compliance is reflected in premium rates Voluntary standards and certification mechanisms 71 72 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE BOX 2.4 — The Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) The AIA Code of Ethics exemplifies the self-regulation that to the professional activities of all AIA members regardless of their characterizes many of the building sector’s professional societies. The membership category and is enforced by the National Ethics Council preamble to the AIA’s Code of Ethics describes the principles upon (NEC). which the Code of Ethics is based and stipulates that AIA members are dedicated to the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, The NEC comprises seven members of the Institute who are and competence. This code itself includes guidelines for the conduct appointed by the AIA’s Board of Directors. The NEC’s decisions may of members in fulfilling those obligations. be appealed to the Institute’s Executive Committee; if the NEC recommends termination, the decision is automatically appealed to The code is arranged in three tiers of statements: canons, ethical the AIA’s Board of Directors. In addition to enforcing the code, the NEC standards, and rules of conduct. also proposes revisions to the Code of Ethics and to the NEC’s Rules of Procedure. • Canons are broad principles of conduct. As part of its efforts to educate members about their obligations • Ethical standards are more specific goals toward which members under the Code of Ethics, to support AIA component executives, should aspire in professional performance and behavior. and to inform the general public about ethical issues that arise in the fields of architecture and design, the NEC conducts educational • Rules of conduct are mandatory; violation of a rule is grounds for programs on ethics at the AIA’s convention, the Institute’s annual disciplinary action by the Institute. grassroots conference for component executives, and at various other Commentary is provided for some of the rules of conduct and is seminars and programs hosted by AIA components. meant to clarify or elaborate the intent of a rule. The code applies Source: American Institute of Architects. Professional education. Safe and resilient /// /// construction requires safe siting by planners aware of hazards, and safe design by architects and engineers aware of safe design principles. It also requires building officials with full understanding of code provisions. These essential built-environment professionals must be adequately trained in accredited institutions and individually licensed on the basis of tested technical competence. Their certified professional competence is critically important in the complex physical environment of rapidly expanding urban areas. Professional accreditation, certification, and licensing are all important aspects of the rule of law and can be reinforced by requirements related to building finance and insurance. Defining professional qualifications requires in-depth consultations with design professionals in order to develop practical and feasible requirements for minimum qualifications at various professional levels. 02 Chapter Professional codes of practice. Professional /// /// Accredited training institutions. Accredited /// /// societies of the building sector in developed training institutions provide specific training countries have taken responsibility for self- for various practitioners, including public and regulation of their members’ professional conduct, private building inspectors, engineers, architects, both by developing codes of professional practice contractors, and builders. Many municipalities also require specific training for the key functions of the and by helping to maintain codes and standards of building department. institutional accreditation. Professional societies play an important role in supporting effective Training institutions provide a way to transfer building and land use regulation in most developed knowledge and—when attached to mandatory countries. training, qualification, or even licensing requirements— can improve compliance Training for construction industry and /// and efficiency. More qualified designers, labor force. All members of the construction /// contractors, and inspectors are better able to industry—not just design and construction evaluate alternative, vernacular, or innovative professionals—must understand, accept, and building approaches because they have a better abide by building codes and standards. It is critical understanding of building science and regulatory that construction detailing be executed correctly procedure. A balanced ecology involves training and that construction materials be understood institutions that are not limited to academic and correctly applied. This is particularly institutions. The private sector should be engaged important for reinforced concrete and other in developing a robust on-the-job training system that does not present a disproportionately high nontraditional materials. barrier to entry for practitioners. Quality control for building materials. Insurance. The insurance industry has played an /// /// Quality control of materials is essential in modern /// /// important role in the historical development of construction. The integrity of a structure depends building regulation as a means to manage risk and on the quality of its materials and the method exposure in many developed countries. Insurance is of their preparation. Testing and certification of based on the quantification and translation of risk building materials and components by accredited into monetary premiums that are comprehended by laboratories is necessary for safe modern building owners as the present and recurring cost construction. of risk. BOX 2.5 — Accreditation of building regulatory agencies The International Accreditation Service (IAS) of the International of deficiency and provides a benchmark for quality of service. IAS Code Council provides an evaluation service for the accreditation accreditation is not only a credit to the municipal government; it also of local building departments. Evaluations are based on analysis shows the business community and general public that the building of staff training and technical qualifications, plan review and site department is functioning at a high level of competence and is worthy inspection practice, customer service, and administrative efficiency. of support and cooperation. Public confidence in regulatory agencies This accreditation process provides a valuable external review is essential to code compliance. This service is provided by an and evaluation of regulatory efficiency and effectiveness. The independent, nongovernmental, nonprofit organization representing accreditation process informs the building department of areas building departments and officials from across the country. 73 74 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Typically, building finance requires insurance risk factors and estimating probable losses. The to cover real estate investments. The insurance Insurance Services Office (ISO) has in the past companies, in turn, require code compliance, developed tools for estimating community fire risk professional certification, and material quality based on construction, firefighting capability, and control. Effective regulation is a requirement water supply. These evaluated variables are used to for insurance underwriting. Beyond property develop a community index, which insurers then and casualty insurance, professional liability use to establish premium rates for fire insurance in insurance plays an important role in regulating the the community. qualifications and performance of designers and In an extension of this concept, the ISO has contractors. The insurance mechanism reinforces developed the Building Code Effectiveness the academic accreditation and public licensing for Grading Schedule (BCEGS). This methodology building professionals. evaluates building department effectiveness in code The insurance industry is in the business of compliance related to natural hazard vulnerability quantifying risk and estimating premiums that in the community. The resulting index is used by cover losses and produce profit. This incentive has insurers to determine premium rates for natural supported the development of tools for evaluating hazard insurance. BOX 2.6 — The French mandatory liability insurance system: a main driver of compliance with building standards In France, builders are liable to the owner for any damage revealed is initiated for any damage (or any risk of damage) occurring within within 10 years which renders all or part of the building defective the 10-year period. The builder’s insurance covers the 10-year liability or unsafe. This 10-year liability provision provides joint liability for period. Provided the builder has complied with state-of-the-art builders and manufacturers, thus shortening and simplifying the standards, referred to as “DTUs,” insurance companies will cover the process of identifying who is liable for the cost of repair. In this way, repair costs for any serious damage. any key player involved in the construction can be held liable for the entire cost of the repairs. In the meantime, the cause of the damage The mandatory insurance regime has led to a shift of power and can be investigated. A 10-year liability is presumed and applies to workload toward insurance companies. With the exception of any damage that compromises the integrity of the structure or that submitting a claim, the process requires no other intervention by affects essential elements of the building, rendering it unsuitable for the owner. A court process is seldom needed because insurance its intended use. companies mostly resolve claims directly between themselves. As a result, delays in receiving compensation are short in most cases. Nearly all actors involved in the building process, apart from the Complaints are submitted to courts only if the conflict cannot be owner, are subject to such liability, and so is the seller of the building resolved at the insurance level, creating fewer costs for the state. after completion. The idea is that whoever creates a problem must pay compensation. Because the 10-year liability is mandated by law, Due to the mandatory insurance system, insurance companies have no contractual clause may depart from it. a significant influence on the content of building contracts and on the techniques and products used during the building process. By making The mandatory insurance requirement applies to any work on a DTUs mandatory, insurance companies act as an actual enforcer building and to the various actors involved in the building process. of building standards. Moreover, by allowing a fast and adequate Both the owner and the builder must take out insurance. compensation of any damage, the system protects the owner and the user of the building. The owner’s insurance covers against all damages to the building. The insurer compensates the owner before any research on liability 02 Chapter 1. A legal and administrative framework 2.4— Conclusion 2. Inclusive and locally appropriate code development, maintenance, and The core components and supporting institutions dissemination process for a building and land use regulatory framework 3. Effective and efficient compliance support are fundamental to disaster and chronic risk through plan review, site inspection, reduction in new and existing settlements. They and permitting constitute the critical link between theoretical Initial efforts in Nepal, Madagascar, Pakistan, and scientific understanding of hazards, engineering Turkey have demonstrated effective means to understanding of building performance, and the support the development of these core components necessary change in building practice to reduce and to advance the key supporting institutions. disaster risk. Established building and land use regimes in Investments in hazard mapping and engineering developed countries have demonstrated success mitigation measures have no impact on risk in reducing disaster and chronic risk, particularly without implementation in building practice. To in terms of life loss. Once established, the core date, this link to practice has been missing in most components and supporting institutions will likely low- and middle-income countries. Experience follow a locally defined evolutionary path of growth from developed countries has demonstrated the in capacity, as has been the case with regulatory necessity of the three core components: capacity in developed countries. BOX 2.7 — Building code effectiveness and insurance The Insurance Services Office (ISO) Building Code Effectiveness The BCEGS program assigns each municipality a BCEGS grade Grading Schedule (BCEGS) assesses building codes that are in effect between 1 (exemplary commitment to building code enforcement) in a particular community as well as how the community enforces and 10. The ISO develops advisory rating credits that apply to ranges its building codes. Special emphasis is placed on mitigation of losses of BCEGS classifications (1‚Äì3, 4‚Äì7, 8‚Äì9, 10). The ISO gives insurers from natural hazards. BCEGS classifications, advisory credits, and related underwriting information on which to base insurance premiums. The concept is simple: municipalities with well-enforced, up-to-date codes should demonstrate better loss experience, and insurance rates The program was first implemented in U.S. states with high exposure can reflect that. The prospect of lessening disaster-related damage to wind (hurricane) hazards before it was expanded to states with high and ultimately lowering insurance costs provides an incentive for seismic exposure. communities to enforce their building codes rigorously—especially as they relate to windstorm and earthquake damage. BCEGS is similar in concept to the ISO’s Public Protection Classification evaluations of municipal fire suppression capabilities that insurers in The anticipated consequences include safer buildings, less damage, the United States have used for decades. and lower insured losses from disasters. Source: Insurance Services Office. 75 Making Building Regulation Work for Disaster Risk Reduction in Low- and Middle-Income Countries suggests the need for aggressive supervision 3.1— Drivers of compliance and punishment for violations. It requires more and principles of inspections and tougher enforcement. Individuals regulatory practice are assumed to be rational calculators, only motivated to comply if the costs of noncompliance This chapter presents specific Drivers of regulatory compliance are high and punishment is highly probable. recommendations for development of building regulatory capacity and The goal of building regulation is to reduce health and safety risk by implementing and obtaining This view rests on a pessimistic perception of compliance for health, safety, and disaster risk reduction in low- and compliance with technically competent, socially human nature, not on research or statistical middle-income countries. The chapter acceptable building codes. In reality, however, evidence. This perspective of compliance outlines a regulatory reform agenda locales sometimes draft and adopt regulations motivation is consistent with neoclassical to guide those dedicated to disaster risk reduction. without considering how likely or feasible economic theory82 in which agents comply based compliance will be. The agenda for improved regulatory on rational choice to maximize expected utility. implementation is prefaced by a They weigh the costs of compliance against the Behavioral drivers of regulatory compliance have discussion of factors influencing been observed in a range of circumstances as potential gains of noncompliance, minus the costs the compliance with code that is fundamental to risk reduction. The diverse as food safety and tax administration. What of possible sanctions multiplied by the probability agenda then presents specific reform are these drivers? A widespread view underpinning of detection.83 Consistent experience from other initiatives that address the problems the design of regulations is that people comply regulatory fields suggests that this is not the case. identified and elaborated in with rules only if there is a threat of serious Chapter 1. consequences for compliance evasion. This model 76 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE 03 Chapter Punishment alone does not achieve /// The procedural justice effects are found in many compliance or risk reduction /// fields and settings.85 A major benefit of this approach is that it helps in developing long-term, Unsurprisingly, studies show that threats of self-sustaining drivers of compliance—and in punishment are a driver of compliance, but not a reducing the need to increase a more traditional decisive one, as dissuasion effects do not always and costly type of police enforcement. lead to desired behaviors.84 In the words of Tom Tyler, the key conditions Compliance driven by threats and deterrence is needed to achieve a procedural justice effect expensive. In practice, effective deterrence requires funding the expansion of costly enforcement are these: systems. Systems that rely entirely on dissuasion also risk intruding on privacy and individual “Decision-making is viewed as being freedoms, which may undermine regulatory neutral, consistent, rule-based, and legitimacy. Deterrence is important but can best without bias; . . . people are treated with be seen as one of the necessary ingredients of dignity and respect and their rights are the compliance system, or as one that should be acknowledged; and . . . they have an considered in combination with positive support to opportunity to participate in the situation achieve compliance. by explaining their perspective and Procedural justice and legitimacy /// indicating their views about how problems foster compliance /// should be resolved.”86 Research has consistently shown that the degree to which regulated subjects find authorities and Designing regulatory processes to rules legitimate is one of the strongest drivers of /// support compliance compliance. Provisions for open participation and /// fairness in the regulatory process, often referred Exclusive reliance on aggressive enforcement may to as “procedural justice,” are the foundation hinder compliance, especially when enforcement of legitimacy and the most important driver of involves abusive arbitrary discretion, lack of voluntary compliance. transparency, disrespectful treatment, excessive Key elements of procedural justice are fairness of bureaucracy, and refusal to consider appeals. interpersonal treatment and behavior by authorities For example, oppressive tax enforcement and that fosters trust and gives stakeholders a real voice harassment of taxpayers seem to increase tax in the process. In practical terms, it means treating resistance, as does discontent with the delivery of people respectfully, demonstrating ethical behavior, public services.87 and self-imposing limits on discretionary power. It also means demonstrating that regulated subjects In conclusion, regulatory and governance reforms are listened to and that their arguments, issues, and should be based on a balanced approach between requests are carefully considered. This approach punitive enforcement and compliance support with does not necessarily lead to decision making that procedural fairness. In this spirit, the following corresponds to the regulated subjects’ requests or sections present specific interventions that can desires, but it demonstrates that their concerns are enhance the legitimacy of the building code process taken into account to the extent possible. and the effectiveness of code compliance. 77 78 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Principles of regulatory practice growing consensus on core principles defines “good regulatory practice” as follows: The World Bank, the OECD, and the U.K.-based Better Regulation Delivery Office88 agree that • Effectiveness. Effective regulation achieves its ** ** regulators should not simply emphasize police objectives (in this case, improved health and enforcement, but also provide clear information, safety and reduced disaster and chronic risk). guidance, and education to those who must • Efficiency. Efficient regulation achieves its ** ** comply. They stress that regulators should beneficial objectives at the lowest cost in terms find straightforward ways to collaborate and of building cost, construction time, and long- engage with those they regulate in order to hear term maintenance. Aggregate benefits, including their views. intangibles such as safety and security, must exceed aggregate costs. Building on the premise that procedural fairness • Transparency, openness, and accountability. is an important driver of regulatory compliance, a ** ** In the development of regulations, interested parties have the opportunity to provide their 03 Chapter views to government via an open consultation 3.2— Agenda to strengthen process. Transparency in regulatory implementation means that regulatory regulatory implementation provisions are unambiguous and readily available in low- and middle- to the public. Accountability means that income countries regulatory policy development, administration, and enforcement are subject to public scrutiny. Ensuring the safety of new Regulators are held accountable for their construction and reducing the risk of actions and mechanisms for dispute resolution are provided. existing vulnerable settlements • Proportionality. The stringency and compliance ** ** The two primary priorities of this report’s cost of regulatory provisions should be balanced recommendations are with the risks and potential losses that they i. to stop the expansion of disaster and chronic address. risk in the siting and construction of new • Consistency. Coordination and consistency settlements; and ** ** between regulatory requirements is essential. ii. to reduce disaster risk in vulnerable existing Provisions for various aspects of a building settlements. cannot be in conflict (that is, structural, plumbing, electrical, and energy codes), nor can New construction with appropriate design can be building regulations contradict the requirements made disaster-resistant for a small percentage of related to environmental protection or construction cost, on the order of 5 to 10 percent,89 historic preservation. whereas the retrofit of existing vulnerable • Innovation. Building codes should not inhibit ** ** structures may require major expenditure, in the advancement of building technology the range of 10 to 50 percent of building value.90 or practice through narrowly prescriptive Establishing standards and implementation requirements. Codes must accommodate and mechanisms for new construction can provide the advance innovation and improvement in both institutional and technical foundation from which building practice and regulatory practice. to address the residual disaster risk in existing These core principles are not always mutually vulnerable settlements. reinforcing. For example, an effective regulatory The massive challenge of risk reduction in practice may result in high levels of compliance at existing buildings is critically important. Removal, the expense of efficiency. Conversely, an excessive focus on efficiency and rapid processing of reviews, replacement, and retrofit of existing unregulated inspections, and approvals can result in lower and unsafe buildings requires an incremental levels of compliance and safety. approach that can reduce risk over a reasonable period of time at a feasible cost. The balanced pursuit of these principles that underpin good regulatory governance requires The proposed agenda charts seven closely related an open process based on fairness and broad strategic sets of actions that aim to reinforce the participation of all legitimate stakeholders in the regulatory capacity of countries at various stages of building process. development. 79 80 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Seven points of intervention to 6. Clearly identify hazard zones and restrict establish and expand building development according to exposure. regulatory capacity 7. Advance supporting institutions. 1. Establish a sound legislative and administrative The agenda does not offer a sequential path for foundation at the national level. extending regulatory capacity. Reforms described in 2. Develop a building code suitable to local social the agenda can be carried out simultaneously and tailored to the specific level of development of the and economic conditions that facilitates safe use cities and countries where they will be initiated. of local building materials and practices. 3. Strengthen implementation of building code The agenda is not exhaustive. It does not seek through plan review, site inspection, and to address all aspects of reform or all issues permitting at the local level. related to the larger context of policy and 4. To support code compliance, provide advisory regulatory governance. These interventions focus on improvements that can be undertaken services in addition to inspection and incrementally within the realm of building and enforcement. land use regulation, with an understanding of 5. Take advantage of opportunities for opportunities and constraints of the specific regulatory interventions. development context. 1 Establish a sound legislative and administrative structure at the national level. 1.1. Establish a legislative foundation for a building 1.2. Adopt a legal framework to support the effec- 1.3. Adopt other critical legislation that contributes and land use regulatory authority to protect tive enforcement of building code regulations to compliant construction. public health and safety and reduce disaster at the local level. and chronic risk. 1. Establish a sound legislative and Recommendation 1.2 Adopt a legal framework /// /// ** administrative structure at the national level. to support the effective enforcement of building Recommendation 1.1 Establish a legislative /// /// ** code regulations at the local level. ** foundation for a building and land use regulatory The legislative foundation of a sound building authority to protect public health and safety and regulatory system provides for the promulgation reduce disaster and chronic risk. of a comprehensive uniform building code. Beyond ** Urban law provides the foundation for effective the building code, other legislative action is urban management and is essential for a successful critically important to establish the basis for local policy implementation at the local level. National regulatory implementation. legislation provides the framework for participation in planning and regulatory processes at the local Legislation must typically define liability rules for level. National policy can define the role of national the construction process; professional qualification and local government agencies to regulate land and licensing requirements for engineers, use and construction as well as to implement architects, and contractors; swift, efficient, and instruments for effective disaster and chronic well-considered dispute resolution processes; risk reduction. and legal provisions for disciplinary and oversight 03 Chapter BOX 3.1 — Historical evolution of building codes in Japan Japan has an extensive history of devastating earthquake disasters. However, building codes have significantly contributed to making Japan one of the world’s most earthquake-resilient countries. 1971 Further key legal developments were marked by a revision to the 1919 Building Standard Law in 1971, which introduced expanded seismic Following serious earthquake damage to modern structures during design codes. the 1800s, scientific and engineering analysis provided the basis for the Urban Building Law of 1919. This law was introduced to regulate 1981 building construction in six major cities in Japan. Building on the foundations of the National Comprehensive Technical Development and Research Project (1972-1977) led by the Ministry of 1920 Construction, Japan’s building code was considerably updated. The In 1920, following the enactment of the Urban Building Law, the revised code, the majority of which is still in use, set the requirement Law Enforcement Order introduced two key innovations. The that buildings be able to endure collapse or any serious damage to law established Japan’s first building permit system, which was the structure and its users at extremely large earthquake scales with operated by the police under prefectural government. In addition, it a return period of 500 years. In addition to the original standard that included technical requirements for usage, height, and other safety required buildings to withstand a lateral force of 20 percent of their specifications associated with zoning and building codes, as well as total weight without damaging structural members, this standard set structural design requirements for timber, masonry, brick, reinforced mandatory requirements for the ductility of the structure to withstand concrete, and steel construction. a lateral force of 100 percent of its own weight. The 1920 regulations also included allowable stress design, quality of 1995 materials, and dead and live loads—but not seismic requirements. The Great Hanshin-Awaji earthquake in 1995 proved that an improved building code can make a significant difference in the rate of 1923 - 1924 building collapses. 97 percent of collapsed buildings had been built The 1923 Kanto earthquake registered a magnitude of 7.9. It resulted under old building codes, while those that complied with updated in significant damage to modern buildings, as well as those using codes represented only 3 percent of the total number of collapsed reinforced concrete. This experience and subsequent analysis led buildings. This triggered a nation-wide large scale reinforcement of to an important revision of the Urban Building Law in 1924. These existing buildings. However, it also revealed previously unrecognized revisions included the introduction of seismic force considerations weaknesses in construction, which resulted in further refinement and subsequent advances in seismic design methods. of seismic codes and responses to new developments impacting building regulation and safety. 1949 Post-World War II reconstruction considerably expanded building 1998 regulation with the following legislation: The Building Standard Law of Japan was revised in 1998, partially with the goal of introducing performance-based design regulations. The • Construction Trade Law (1949) law also opened the building inspection and certification process to private companies, thus supplementing local governments who were • Building Standard Law (1950) previously the only competent authorities for conducting this process. • Architect Law (1950) 2006 These new laws aimed to safeguard the life, health, and property The process for validating structural calculation was considerably of citizens by providing minimum standards concerning the site, strengthened following cases of code violation in 2005. structure, equipment, and use of buildings; to define the qualification Dramatic Reduction of Damage due to Earthquake Ground Motion of engineers who could design buildings and supervise construction work; to improve the quality of those engaged in construction trades; Japan’s dynamic incremental improvement of building code provisions and to promote fair construction contracts. serves as an outstanding example of the value of combining building research and regulation to meet the challenges of disaster risk Aside from the legal code documents, the contemporary building reduction. Continuous improvement of building codes, including regulatory system of Japan referenced standards developed by rapid incorporation of lessons learned from disaster experience qualified government and nongovernment organizations such as and thorough implementation of regulatory provisions, has • Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport & Tourism (Ministry of supported a dramatic improvement of seismic performance in new Construction at that time) Japanese construction. • The Architectural Institute of Japan Source: Mr. Yukiyasu Kamemura, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport & Tourism (MLIT); Dr. Tatsuo Narafu, JICA; Keiko Sakoda • The Japan Concrete Institute guidelines, specifications, Kaneda, World Bank; Shunsuke Otani, Chiba University. and manuals 81 82 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE mechanisms related to building professionals and A legislative foundation should build incrementally the building and real estate industries. on other national legislation, which exists as part of a larger ecosystem of institutions that can As highlighted in the introduction of this report, strongly influence regulatory outcomes. Examples building and land use regimes in developed countries of critical legislation include legal provisions have evolved incrementally over time and created for the recognition of digital signatures that increasingly resilient systems to sustain chronic and enable automated administrative procedures, exceptional risks. Japan’s experience offers a strong accountability measures for public servants, illustration of this principle (Box 3.1). insurance laws, legal mechanisms enabling /// Recommendation 1.3 Adopt other critical /// ** housing finance for lower-income groups, and laws legislation that contributes to compliant construction. ** establishing the process for tenure security. 2 Develop a building code suitable to local social and economic conditions that facilitates safe use of local building materials and practices. 2.1 Establish 2.2 Adopt a local 2.3 Develop a 2.4 Establish building 2.5 Provide for wide 2.6 Create and an open, building code comprehensive materials testing dissemination of maintain public participatory, referencing an building code and certification code documents awareness of ba- consensus-based established that covers the laboratories that and training for sic safe construc- process for code model code while full range of are accessible to builders and tion principles for development. incorporating relevant con- major construc- owners based on the community, necessary adap- struction types tion zones. code documen- building owners, tations to local and practices. tation. and informal context. sector builders. 2. Develop a building code suitable to professionals, builders, building owners, and local social and economic conditions that building occupants, as well as those with expertise facilitates safe use of local building materials on health, safety, and disaster risk. and practices. Adequate building safety regulations are Recommendation 2.1 Establish an open, • Fit for purpose from a technical perspective. /// /// ** participatory, consensus-based process for ** ** Building code provisions should incorporate the code development. best knowledge and scientific understanding of ** A building code must reflect the social, potential hazard loads and expected structural technological, and economic reality of the country. and functional performance. Code documents cannot be simply transported • Tailored to the needs and assimilation ** from a high- to low-income country. Compliance capability of the country, with specific ** must be feasible to the greatest extent possible with reference to its risk profile, the building locally available materials and skills. An inclusive culture, capacity of local builders, availability of and consensus-based process for developing a materials, educational facilities, equipment, and building code involves the participation of building income levels. 03 Chapter • Endorsed and accepted by relevant ** ** Focus group discussions: These are held at various ** stakeholders in the building process. There** levels (national interest group representatives or must be broad consensus on the balance of risks grassroots, for example) and in various formats. and costs acceptable for building performance They can be used to assess a situation, gather views, discuss the contents of a proposed regulation, and as provided for in the particulars of the get feedback on existing regulations. code. Stakeholders must accept the specific implementation and enforcement mechanisms Recommendation 2.2 Adopt a local building /// /// ** as legitimate and fair. code referencing an established model code while incorporating necessary adaptations to Meeting these requirements entails effective local context. stakeholder consultation and participation. Several ** tools can be used to facilitate this involvement, as It is possible to develop a local code based on an follows: established model code as long as it is supported by a thorough analysis and adaptation process carried Notice and comment (or “public review process”): ** ** out locally. Jamaica adopted this approach by The issue of interest to the regulator, the intent to referencing the International Code Council (ICC) regulate, or the draft regulation is published and family of codes. open for written comments by all interested parties Recommendation 2.3 Develop a comprehensive (individuals and organizations) for a given period. /// /// ** building code that covers the full range of Surveys: Conducted via Internet, phone, or some ** ** relevant construction types and practices. ** other means, surveys target different stakeholder Building codes should provide for safer groups and audiences. They can be used to assess construction for the full range of prevalent a situation prior to developing a regulation, construction types—that is, for technically to gather views on an issue or on proposed engineered and sophisticated structures regulations, and to obtain feedback on regulations as well as traditional indigenous and non- already introduced. engineered construction. BOX 3.2 — How Jamaica adapted and localized an international model building code In 2003, the Jamaican Institute of Engineers initiated the development Furthermore, using the ICC model code satisfied three major of the Jamaican National Building Code (JNBC). Early in this process, directives from the government of Jamaica—namely, that the code the working group favored the ICC’s model building code as the base should cover the widest possible range of building types, ensure code for Jamaica. Rather than transposing the ICC code into Jamaica, as far as possible that no single disaster could destroy the entire the approach consisted of drafting an application document to the ICC building infrastructure of Jamaica, and assure that all buildings could to present special values, parameters, and conditions for Jamaica. be accessible by the disabled. An essential task of the working group assigned to the project was reviewing five ICC codes and writing the This approach had tangible advantages for Jamaica. First, it spared appropriate application documents that provided the local calibration the reform team the high transaction cost of developing an entirely and necessary adjustments to specific national construction new document from scratch. Secondly, it enabled Jamaica to tap into techniques and risk environment. a building code system that was adequately resourced to keep the code current with the constant changes in building technology and Source: Based on DaCosta (no date). weather patterns. 83 84 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE BOX 3.3 — Nepal Society for Earthquake Technology and the Nepal Building Code The devastating impact of the April and May 2015 earthquakes in Professionally engineered structures: Nepal provided an early test of an innovative approach to building These include all usual structures such as hospitals, commercial code implementation. The NSET has carried out a multifaceted buildings, factories, warehouses, and multistory buildings. For such program of earthquake risk reduction over the past 20 years, and its buildings, design requirements are provided in the NBC. initiatives have included building code development, mason training, school retrofit, and regulatory capacity building. Small buildings designed to meet “rules of thumb”: This category is defined as buildings constructed with modern Developed in 1994, the Nepal Building Code (NBC) addresses the materials, such as concrete and steel, but not exceeding simple full range of locally prevalent construction types, including non- criteria of height, configuration, and number of stories or floor engineered indigenous structures. Most buildings in Nepal are built area. Mandatory rules of thumb are provided. The requirements are by owner-builders or local tradesmen. Neither group is trained in typically confined to the maximum span, minimum reinforcing and seismic construction. In the absence of basic regulatory capacity, the member sizes, positioning of earthquake-resisting elements, and Nepalese code development team chose to set realistic objectives for other such rules. The guidance materials are provided in a form that the design of technical standards and guidance materials. For simple, an experienced construction manager or mason can understand small-scale construction, the code proposed technical guidance while presenting sufficient detail to pass the permit review of the as “rules of thumb,” assuming that simple but essential structural building department. details could be checked by nonspecialist staff of municipal building departments. Non-engineered construction employing traditional materials and skills: The NBC recognized the full spectrum of current forms of construction These guidelines are based on the analysis of some 50 typical through a four-tier building permitting system. On this basis, it prevailing building types in Nepal constructed by employing developed a hierarchy of building controls consistent with the existing vernacular materials and skills. Two sets of guidelines have been capacity on the ground in terms of both construction practice and developed, one dealing with low-strength masonry and another regulatory application of compliance checks. dealing with earthen structures. The guidelines provide simple rules for improving seismic safety of these structures. Although these International state-of-the-art construction: recommendations are described as guidelines, they are intended There are occasional examples of such construction, including high- as mandatory for structures built in areas controlled by a building rise hotels and office buildings, in the country. If consultants ensure permit-issuing local authority. that their designs meet recognized international standards, the designs are considered to be in conformance with NBC. Sources: Parajuli et al. 2000; UNCRD 2008. 03 Chapter Nepal is a low-income country facing a daunting earthquakes that occurred in Huaraz, Peru (1970), disaster risk. The Himalayan mountain range and in Bam, Iran (2003), caused the tragic deaths of is a zone of exceptional seismic activity. The thousands of people who were crushed under their collision of tectonic plates that gave rise to the own earthen houses. highest mountains in the world also is capable of generating great earthquakes. Due to the Peru addressed the vulnerability of adobe houses severe climate and limited availability of building by including guidelines for their design and materials, local construction is particularly construction in its National Building Code. This vulnerable to seismic forces. The Kathmandu Valley approach illustrates how one country managed was struck by a major earthquake in 1934. Since that the tradeoff between the need to reduce disaster time, the area’s population has grown to roughly risks and the recognition that non-engineered 2.5 million people, who live in structures designed construction was a social and economic necessity and built without the benefit of formal regulatory for millions. oversight. The 2015 earthquakes have more recently Recommendation 2.4 Establish building revealed the consequences of population increase /// /// ** materials testing and certification laboratories and local construction practices. Organizations that are accessible to major construction zones. such as the Nepal Society for Earthquake ** Technology (NSET) have recognized the serious Uniform and certified performance criteria for exposure and vulnerability of the Kathmandu Valley building materials are essential for the design and have pursued a range of strategies to reduce and construction of safe buildings. The design of earthquake risk for the people of the area since the structures assumes that materials will perform in early 1990s. a uniform and predictable way. Quality control for In many developing countries, earthen dwellings building materials requires standard test facilities are a traditional housing solution, as appropriate and laboratories that can certify the characteristics soils are abundant and inexpensive. Unfortunately, of materials such as cement, aggregate, cement because earthen houses are built informally, masonry units, and steel. A network of materials they tend to collapse in earthquakes, causing testing laboratories must be located near areas of considerable economic losses and casualties. The significant construction activity. BOX 3.4 — The Peruvian Building Seismic Code for earthen buildings The first Peruvian Adobe Seismic Code was approved in 1985 as an integral sector. In most countries, only certified professionals are legally allowed part of the National Building Code. This code has been used to develop to approve and sign off on design projects, and thus belong to the formal general guidelines to generate seismic codes and as a crucial reference system. Most of the people that build and live in adobe houses do not for the development of seismic codes in other vulnerable countries, such know or use the code; therefore, most adobe codes for seismic areas do as India and Nepal. It was updated in 2000 to describe the scope, general not effectively influence building practice. requirements, and definitions of structural elements and components. It describes the seismic behavior of adobe buildings and provides After issuing the Peruvian Building Seismic Code for earthen buildings, specifications for the dimensioning of the structural systems and the Peru has found it is necessary to complement these codes with design of adobe walls. construction manuals, booklets, and guiding materials, as well as with educational campaigns carried out through local governments, NGOs, and The earthquake-resistant code provisions for adobe are addressed to the media. professionals involved in the design and construction of adobe buildings, not to certified professionals that typically operate in the formal building Source: Blondet, Vargas, and Tarque 2005. 85 86 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE BOX 3.5 — A promising example in a lower-middle-income country: How Guatemala developed a new accredited laboratory for building materials In 2002, Guatemala established the Guatemalan Accreditation Body bodies, including construction materials testing laboratories. This (OGA), a key component of the National Quality System within the step represents a remarkable move toward improving public health Ministry of Economy. In 2014, OGA awarded laboratory accreditation and safety. It also demonstrates that the country understands the to Centro Tecnologico del Cemento y Concreto (CETEC) for ISO/IEC importance of construction materials quality in a disaster-prone 17025. This is the main ISO standard used by testing and calibration country exposed to recurrent volcanic activity, hurricanes, and laboratories to demonstrate their technical competence. The main landslides. In 1976, for example, an earthquake caused 23,000 technical areas covered by CETEC include concrete, cement, soil fatalities and resulted in economic damage equal to 18 percent mechanics, and chemical tests. The laboratory is equipped with of GDP. testing equipment for cement, lime, concrete, aggregates, and soils. Its annual operating budget is approximately $1.5 million. Source: Sylvana Ricciarini, American Association for Laboratory Accreditation. With an internationally recognized accreditation body (OGA), Guatemala has actively started to accredit conformity assessment The accuracy and integrity of the materials testing million loan from the World Bank. An important certification process must be assured through a component of the program involved setting system of accreditation. Efforts should therefore up training programs for structural engineers be made to expand the capacity of national in earthquake engineering, particularly for the accreditation mechanisms and to support actual strengthening of existing structures. Though the accreditation of local specialized laboratories with project concluded impressively in 2014 with 3,630 expertise in building materials testing. newly trained building practitioners and engineers, there was little evidence that this training effort Recommendation 2.5 Provide for wide /// /// ** was a permanent program and part of a longer-term dissemination of code documents and pre-disaster risk reduction strategy. training for builders and owners based on code documentation. ** The World Bank, the Japan International The local building department must be proactive Cooperation Agency (JICA), and USAID have in supporting the capacity of local designers and supported training in improved construction builders to comply with code provisions. Support techniques and code compliance for building for compliance is the necessary complement to trades, architects, engineers, and owner-builders inspection and enforcement in order to achieve in Turkey, Nepal, Pakistan, Madagascar, and building safety. Indonesia. These efforts were launched in the aftermath of disasters, but this type of training The government of Turkey and the World Bank must be expanded and institutionalized for initiated ISMEP in 2005 to address the vulnerability all new construction, particularly in areas of of public buildings in Istanbul and to reduce the urban expansion. devastation that could occur in the next major earthquake; the program incorporated a $460 03 Chapter Recommendation 2.6 Create and maintain /// /// ** quality blocks as well as about the costs and public awareness of basic safe construction benefits of purchasing them. principles for the community, building owners, A range of innovative communications solutions and informal sector builders. ** have also aimed to increase community-wide Post-disaster experience provides examples of commitments to safer building practices. In August successful and diverse educational and public 2010, the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) awareness initiatives primarily designed to improve began training Haitian masons in earthquake- knowledge of community members, homeowners, resistant building techniques. However, the NGO construction workers, and foremen. These efforts soon realized that the training of masons operating are often driven and delivered by a wide range in the informal sector might not be enough to of stakeholders and specialized NGOs. Such eliminate unsafe building practices. It decided initiatives should be expanded, coordinated, and to disseminate the tenets of safe construction to institutionalized in pre-disaster scenarios. They the public and to show homeowners, families, should aim at demonstrating the benefits of safe and friends that they too were responsible for building practices and creating the buy-in for a ensuring that building standards were followed. It wider culture of code compliance. achieved this goal by hiring a comedy troupe and Existing tools can be rolled out and adapted to funding a lively and humorous video in the style of local circumstances. For example, the Earthquake Haitian television, conveying clear instructions in Engineering Research Institute (EERI) and the earthquake-resistant building techniques as well as Competence Center for Reconstruction (CCR), dos and don’ts for both workers and homeowners.92 supported by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, updated a guidebook in 2015 to support technical training for earthquake-resistant FIGURE 3.1 — Excerpt from EERI and CCR guidebook on confined masonry construction of small buildings in confined masonry. This guidebook primarily targets masons and informal builders in developing countries. It is a leading reference in presenting the topic in simple and straightforward language and in explaining, in a step-by-step sequence, how to build a one- and two-story confined masonry building.91 Other efforts have focused on producers of critical building materials and creating awareness of the larger community of homeowners, NGOs, and government agencies. For example, Build Change has trained and certified concrete block producers in Haiti to increase the quality of their product. It has organized marketing and awareness events for each certified block maker, in which clients and neighboring homeowners can learn about the importance of using (usually more expensive) 87 88 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE 3 Strengthen implementation of building code through plan review, site inspection, and permitting at the local level. 3.1 Enhance compliance by 3.2 Communicate changes 3.3 Establish conflict 3.4 Provide funding and 3.5 Simplify and reengineer applying principles of associated with local resolution and appeal support to building building permitting and procedural justice and building regulatory mechanisms. departments at the local inspections procedures. transparency. reforms. level with technically qualified and adequate- ly compensated building officials. 3.6 Apply ICT to support 3.7 Apply risk management 3.8 Apply fee levels con- 3.9 Leverage resources 3.10 Create robust increased efficiency to construction permits sistent with the cost of from the private sector accountability and transparency and inspections. regulatory services. for more efficient and mechanisms around of building control effective compliance public-private part- procedures. checks mechanisms. nerships in building code compliance checks. 3. Strengthen implementation of building Though transparency in regulatory design and code through plan review, site inspection, and implementation is key, it is consistently hard to permitting at the local level. measure. Doing Business provides some tangible Recommendation 3.1 Enhance compliance /// /// ** measures of how large cities apply principles by applying principles of procedural justice of transparency in construction permitting by and transparency. ** comparing the level and quality of disclosure for specific regulatory requirements and A legitimate regulatory process is essential to administrative fees. achieving compliance. The regulatory process must be transparent and open to public scrutiny. Recommendation 3.2 Communicate changes /// /// ** The rationale for all requirements should be associated with local building regulatory reforms. ** reasonable and presented publicly. The health Regulatory reform initiatives should place strategic and safety consequences of regulatory provisions communications at the heart of the process. Two- should be presented to the public through way communication with stakeholders will enhance community meetings along with information and communications campaigns. inclusion and the legitimacy of the reform. Doing Business 201593 suggests that easier access Regulatory practitioners often assume that once to regulatory information, such as permitting fee audiences understand the benefits of reforms, they schedules, is associated with greater regulatory will support them, but experience has shown that efficiency, lower compliance costs, and better simply educating audiences and disseminating regulatory quality for businesses. This finding information is not enough to change behavior seems to confirm that more transparency and or to get reforms accepted. Because the reforms better-quality government tend to go hand-in- aim to transform processes, responsibilities, and hand.94 behaviors within municipalities, changes will likely 03 Chapter BOX 3.6 — Peru and Nicaragua: Simplification of building permitting procedures through communication (2006-2009) Like many countries in Latin America, Peru and Nicaragua have and associated messages to local building authorities, building been burdened with complicated and costly municipal regulations practitioners, and other partners. After Nicaragua had concluded its that impact operating licenses and construction permits. According three municipal pilots in Granada, Masaya, and Leon, compliance to Doing Business 2005, in that year it took 189 days to obtain costs of operating and construction permits were reduced by 30 a construction permit in Nicaragua. Inefficient processes at the percent on average; business formalization increased sevenfold. municipal level contributed to high transaction costs for those subjected to local regulations. Rates of building informality were In both Peru and Nicaragua, an active strategic communication hovering around 80 percent of building stocks, thus increasing the approach was crucial to putting administrative simplification on the vulnerability of local population in the context of significant seismic political agenda and permanently tying the reforms to stakeholders’ risks in both countries. interests in the building sector. The Municipal Simplification projects in Peru and Nicaragua, led by Through a coordinated and documented communications strategy, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), built strong support for the municipalities effectively harnessed public-private partnerships to reform by engaging stakeholders and creating a sense of ownership build support and increase visibility in the press. They also used these in municipalities. Each project employed an overarching strategic partnerships to build a national umbrella campaign message, localize communications approach, anchored in a national plan that prioritized reform messages, deliver those messages to the right places, and communications at each stage of the project life cycle. To ensure develop local ownership of a national plan. These teams went beyond reform adoption and sustainability, the project teams localized disseminating information, excelling at communicating strategically. the approach, carefully tailoring the communications strategies Source: IFC 2007. FIGURE 3.2 — Greater access to regulatory information is associated with greater trust in regulatory quality Source: World Bank, Worldwide Governance Indicators; Doing Business database High 1.5 HIGH ACCESS 1.0 Regulatory quality 0.5 NO ACCESS 0 -0.5 Low -1.0 Economies by accessibility of regulatory information Note: The 176 economies in the sample are divided into 5 groups based on the accessibility of information index, and averages are taken for the economies in each group on the Regulatory Quality Index ranking of the Worldwide Governance Indicators for 2009. The Regulatory Quality Index, ranging from -2.5 (weak) to 2.5 (strong), measures public perception of government’s ability to formulate and implement sound policies. Relationships are significant at the 5 percent level after controlling for income per capita. 90 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE be resisted, particularly by those who have an Local administrative and technical regulatory interest in maintaining the status quo for rent- capacity requires technically qualified building seeking purposes. Strategic communications can officials. These officials carry out plan reviews help to build the coalitions and means of pressure and site inspections as required for all new needed to effectively address forces that hold back construction, and they must be compensated at necessary reforms. a level that both meets their qualifications and reduces vulnerability to corruption. They must Recommendation 3.3 Establish conflict also be provided with necessary support, including /// /// ** resolution and appeal mechanisms. equipment and transportation. ** An effective mechanism for appeals and conflict Building officials must demonstrate technical resolution is essential for providing procedural competency in areas of review and inspection fairness, transparency, and a level playing field. A for which they have responsibility. These include quasi-judicial body involving both local government structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing and private building professionals should be systems, as well as fire and natural hazards. established to deal with disputes between building Building officials should have professional professionals and permitting authorities on matters qualification in engineering or architecture, related to the interpretation of the building code or or comparable building industry experience. sufficiency of compliance. Certification criteria have been established for each Where a regulatory authority registers or certifies category of building department staff, for example building practitioners, an independent appeal by the ICC. With appropriate adaptation, these body should be established to deal with appeals criteria can be applicable in low- and middle- from practitioners concerning registration and income countries. certification. To be effective, the appeal system The staffing of building departments must be must ensure technical competence and procedural commensurate with the workload presented safeguards and must be managed transparently. by construction activity in the authority having Recommendation 3.4 Provide funding and /// /// ** jurisdiction. The building department must be support to building departments at the local provided necessary equipment and logistical level with technically qualified and adequately support to carry out the missions of plan review, compensated building officials. ** site inspection, and enforcement. BOX 3.7 — How building regulatory decisions are appealed in Ontario, Canada To ensure efficient and fair appeal decisions, professional regulators all commission members have appropriate technical expertise and and industry professionals should participate in specialized conflict are appointed from both the regulatory and industry sectors. BCC resolution bodies, and their views should carry the same weight as decisions are binding but case-specific. Hearings never exceed eight those of other members. weeks, which presents a decisive advantage of the BCC over the main court system. When this new appeal mechanism was introduced in In Ontario, the Building Code Commission (BCC) is established by the early 2000s, the backlog of long-term pending building permit law. Although its members are appointed by the minister of housing, requests was rapidly reduced by 25 percent. 03 Chapter Finally, building officials need to be adequately compensated, and the remuneration model for payment for the services needs to be carefully considered. This issue is relevant to all countries, irrespective of their income levels. A prominent regulatory expert, Kim Lovegrove, suggests that building officials should not be remunerated on a competitive free market model. Given their unique statutory enforcement and consumer protection role, they should be paid based on a prescribed remuneration floor (the lowest acceptable level of pay), which should be set by the regulator and adequately indexed (for example, to the CPI if appropriate). This construction permits. This effort was participative, approach ensures that the building approval and it fully engaged building code officials to responsibilities are discharged in a manner that is ensure their buy-in to the greatest extent possible. commensurate with the real cost of performing the Also impacted were other preapproval authorities statutory function.95 involved in the building permitting process, Recommendation 3.5 Simplify and reengineer /// /// ** such as the Industrial Development Authority, building permitting and inspections procedures. ** the Environmental Affairs Agency, and the Civil Aviation Authority. Other simplification reforms Simplification efforts should be carried out at supported by the project included the local municipal level and first target the core building permitting and inspections functions. • Turning ex ante preapproval requirements They should be initiated in pilot municipalities imposed on investors into a simple notification chosen on the basis of local political commitment. of the building project to the relevant public agency. For deeper efficiency gains, the scope of • Suggesting and creating risk thresholds to simplification efforts should be expanded to eliminate any preapproval requirements for include processes linked to noncore building small and low-rise buildings. code preapproval requirements from other • Agreeing on maximum time limits for the authorities (such as land use planning, utilities, issuance of approvals.96 and environmental clearances). For example, in 2006, a three-year simplification reform of Simplifying administrative procedures lowers building permits and inspections was supported transaction costs and increases legitimacy and by the World Bank Group in Egypt. This reform regulatory compliance. Building regulatory targeted core municipal construction permitting reforms initiated in Ontario in 2001 relied on processes and 18 related administrative approvals the two-pronged approach of improving skills from other public agencies in the municipality of and accountability of building practitioners and Alexandria. One focus was preapprovals from non- significantly streamlining procedures. In 2006, building-code entities, which consumed almost 40 more than four years after the reforms were percent of the time builders spent trying to obtain initiated, they had contributed to achieving better 91 92 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE BOX 3.8 — A standardized simplification of building permitting procedures: A four-stage approach To be effective, administrative simplification should proceed in four redundant or add no value to controls and risk management. stages. The approach outlined below was used in Turkey after the A reengineering process can be supported by a predefined 1999 earthquake; in Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru in the past 10 years; “target process” considered consistent with best practices and and more recently in Kenya and Rwanda (respectively in 2011 and with the objective of minimizing transaction costs. For example, 2012). in Ontario, documentation in support of municipal reform efforts recommended a standardized seven-step process of inspections 1. Process mapping: The outcome is a detailed description of for certain types of buildings and occupancy. all the steps and procedures, the average duration of each procedure, the related fees, the documentation required, and 3. Testing: This stage formalizes new processes and trains building the specific legislation or regulation prescribing this step code officials and inspectors. or procedure. 4. Automating the new process: This stage establishes online 2. Re-engineering of procedures: Working groups analyze the submission of building plans, work-flow management, online procedures with the objective of removing those that are issuance of permits, archiving of documentation, and reporting. standards of construction, a decline of 12 percent in Relevant authorities should take into account residential fire loss, and a reduction of 15 percent in the availability and reliability of the local ICT civilian injuries. 97 infrastructure when designing online permitting solutions. The legal and regulatory infrastructure Recommendation 3.6 Apply ICT to support /// /// ** increased efficiency and transparency of building should also be considered, as outdated building acts control procedures. ** and the lack of a legal basis for online transactions and digital signatures can hamper efforts to Electronic solutions or e-construction permit automate permitting systems. systems and applications today encompass a multitude of technologies. They range from simple ICT reforms may be implemented incrementally databases and back-office work-flow applications using open-source technologies with no license using generic software tools to a few sophisticated, cost. Authorities may choose to build internal web-based systems that enable building capacity before exposing their staff to the increased professionals to conduct their entire management demand of online services. Building agencies can construction project cycle online. choose to first develop their back-office functions Efforts to improve work-flow management and before developing a full range of online services. introduce online permitting systems must be With support from the World Bank Group, expanded. These efforts should be undertaken only Kenya and Rwanda began ICT reforms related to after simplifying reengineering and administrative processes. These reforms must be developed e-construction permitting in 2011. These reforms together with a commitment from planning and have demonstrated that low- and middle-income building authorities to adopt a change management economies can introduce successful ICT platforms strategy, which will ensure that staff have the with a relatively wide range of solutions from the capacity to effectively utilize new technology. start. 03 Chapter The new automated system launched in September significantly streamlined and third-party review is 2011 by the City Council of Nairobi (CCN) was not required for lower-risk groups. developed in less than two years and included Between 2006 and 2014, 88 countries established training of the CCN staff and building code fast-track building permitting procedures for very officials. The training reduced time of approval by small commercial buildings.99 A closer look at the 80 percent and transaction costs for the private particular circumstances around these measures sector by 60 percent. The City Council surpassed suggests that the reforms have often been narrow its revenue targets after it registered a 300 percent in scope and not always driven by risk factors. increase in permit applications.98 With the rapid expansion of cities in developing Recommendation 3.7 Apply risk management /// /// ** countries, these measures were more a concession to construction permits and inspections. ** to the overwhelming growth of small unregulated buildings than a deliberate step at introducing risk Risk-based approaches in construction permitting management. and inspections bring opportunities to streamline procedures and focus scarce implementation Consistent with good practice, the United resources on buildings that matter most from a Kingdom has recently started to implement a public health and safety perspective. risk-based approach to home building and home improvements. To use the resources of local Building applications should be categorized into building agencies more effectively, it ended the different risk groups. This practice has allowed practice of carrying out systematic site inspections one-stop-shops to be established in larger at three predetermined stages of construction. municipalities, where requirements have been It replaced this rigid and costly system with a BOX 3.9 — The Istanbul Seismic Risk Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Project (ISMEP) Initiated in 2005 and supported by a World Bank Group loan of $460 • Digitizing of archives involving more than 47,000 paper folders. million, ISMEP aimed to enhance the institutional and technical capacity of Istanbul, Turkey, in addressing seismic risks. • Training on new processes of over 100 people internally, in the municipality. Component C of the project had a budget of about $5 million and focused on improving building code enforcement in two pilot districts • Developing an online system for land use approvals and of Istanbul. A thorough reengineering and automation of construction construction permits. permits and inspections services was carried out from January 2007 • Creating a dedicated call center to handle client requests. to December 2012, involving the building authority of the Municipality of Bağcilar. Supported by a preexisting law promulgated in 2004 and recognizing e-signature, Bağcilar became the first municipality in Turkey to • The scope envisaged for the shift from paper to online processes develop online building permit services. As of October 2012, the was particularly ambitious, as it involved project had reduced necessary documentation by 35 percent and had • Updating and digitizing a comprehensive database with detailed reduced time for issuing a building permit by 55 percent. spatial data at the individual building level. Source: Adapted from Reis 2015. • Synchronizing GIS and MIS data into a single database at the municipality level. 93 94 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE BOX 3.10 — Implementing online construction in Nairobi, Kenya Tepid enforcement of building regulations in Kenya has often resulted significantly. This system also has the potential to ring-fence building in porous oversight on safety, higher costs for all involved, and human permit fees that are a critical revenue stream for the county. casualties in Kenya’s construction sector. Over the past year alone, no less than three buildings have collapsed in Nairobi County despite Despite challenges in the prevalent ICT and legal infrastructure in the new e-Construction Permit Management System (e-CP) being in Kenya, the web-based software application introduced by the City place. The collapsed buildings did not have the required construction Council of Nairobi (CCN) enabled eight major functions that radically permit approvals from the relevant county departments. The lack of transformed the management of construction permitting and adherence to proper procedures and building regulations increases inspections in Nairobi after 2011. These key functions included the risk of collapsing. • Online registration of building professionals and The e-CP system was developed with the support of the World Bank property developers. Group’s Investment Climate Program to help speed and simplify • Online submission of building plans. building permit approval processes, improve administrative efficiency for construction permits and promote best practices within the • Workflow management, specifically concurrent review construction industry. The e-CP system allows inspection officers and evaluation. to track all developments and record progress of the construction remotely by inputting information through tablets. The new system • Online issuance of permit upon approval. generally makes it more efficient to monitor and enforce any constructions approved through the system. • Document management and archiving. The e-CP streamlines the submissions process and makes it more • Support for field inspections using mobile devices. transparent, as applicants will be able to monitor the status of their application in real time through a web-and SMS-based tracking and • Client interactions through SMS/email notifications and notification system. Architects in Nairobi County acknowledge that online tracking. ad hoc and informal charges previously imposed on them, such as • Management reporting and oversight. unofficial fees to expedite approval processes, have been reduced Source: IFC 03 Chapter risk-based approach to inspection. Local building these levels be based on the cost of recovery for authorities now typically develop a service plan services provided by the municipality, but they detailing the stages of work that will be inspected. should also strive to be affordable within the local The plan considers the project’s size, complexity, socioeconomic context. Specifically, they should construction type, and ground conditions as well as not exceed 3 percent of the cost of construction the builder’s experience, thereby providing a more and should seek to move closer to the current targeted and calibrated regulatory response to the OECD average of 1.7 percent.101 particular risk factors on the ground.100 To facilitate compliance, building regulatory fees Recommendation 3.8 Apply fee levels /// /// ** and collection processes should be based on the consistent with the cost of regulatory services. ** cost of recovery for building control services. The aggregate cost of planning, building permits, and inspection fees should be set at a reasonable level that ensures the financial self-sustainability of building code municipal services. Not only should TABLE 3.1— Good practice in setting and administering building fees Practice Background Fees should include the costs associated with the review of plans and any inspections along with overhead costs. This is Establish fees levels based on cost recovery for building control the approach followed by New Zealand, where building consent services agencies charge fees for issuing a building code compliance certificate when the building is completed. Low municipal tax resources often create an incentive to turn building permit fees into proxies for tax revenues. If deficiencies in the property tax system require collecting funds at the Ensure that building control fees do not fulfill a tax purpose time of construction, the tax portion of the building permit fee should be clearly delineated in the interest of transparency and accountability. For small buildings, setting a small, fixed fee is considered good practice. Minimum fees are necessary because the cost of providing services is not directly proportional to the area or Charge small, fixed fees for small projects presenting no risk to cost of the building; a minimum charge is therefore needed to public health and safety cover enforcement costs for small projects. Large projects with substantial permit fees will typically cross-subsidize smaller projects. To support efforts on transparency and process efficiency, fee schedules for permits and inspections should be publicized and Publicize fee schedules made available on the local authorities’ website and other means of communications. 95 96 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Recommendation 3.9 Leverage resources from /// /// ** An encouraging outcome emerged from a reform the private sector for more efficient and effective initiated in Colombia. In the early 1990s, Bogota’s compliance check mechanisms. ** Planning Office was seriously understaffed and unable to cope with the demand created by new Strengthening capacity for plan reviews construction. In 1995, the Planning Office began to and inspections should be pursued through use private professionals to carry out plan reviews collaboration with the private sector, following and issue building permits. As a result, the average particular institutional and organizational time needed to process construction permits arrangements consistent with local needs and plummeted, from a daunting three years in 1995 to opportunities. Major reforms in building code just 33 days in 2012. The use of private engineering implementation initiated in the past 20 years have expertise could possibly be extended to building sought to take advantage of resources and expertise inspections, which are still the responsibility of available in the private sector. These reforms local “prefects”—individuals who lack the technical were driven by the greater complexity of building and financial resources to conduct professional technologies and increased pressure on scarce inspections yet operate within the constraints of a municipal human resources. Collaboration with demanding seismic environment. the private sector has been a source of innovation in building code implementation procedures, Recommendation 3.10 Create robust /// /// ** with useful experience emerging in high-income accountability mechanisms around public-private countries, transitional economies, and middle- partnerships in building code compliance checks. ** income countries. When the conditions are appropriate, public In a growing number of countries, municipalities authorities should ask for private sector assistance can use licensed or accredited private sector to ease the burden of administrative procedures. engineers to carry out third-party plan reviews However, this approach should be strongly or inspections to verify project compliance supported by robust safeguards to ensure that with building code requirements and approved private sector building professionals are qualified, building plans. actually evaluated, and supervised by a centralized BOX 3.11 — How FYR Macedonia ended a bureaucratic system of building code implementation by collaborating with the private sector Drawing from the experience of European Union countries, and in and zoning requirements, controlling building size, setback, height, an effort to improve building safety and compliance, FYR Macedonia and use. radically amended its Construction Act in 2008. The change introduced mandatory licensing for engineers and contractors. A preliminary review of the reform conducted in 2012 concluded that It also allowed private independent engineers to review design the move toward independent private sector compliance checks and construction to establish compliance with approved plans was effective and efficient. FYR Macedonia jumped 86 ranks in the and building code requirements. Municipal authorities were no indicator for “dealing with construction permits” in Doing Business longer involved in technical building reviews; instead, modern-day 2012. It avoided the pitfalls of an overly bureaucratic system, freed up municipalities now ensure that the appropriate process is followed resources in local planning departments, and created more reliable and that buildings are constructed in accordance with local planning checks and balance in a country marked by frequent seismic activity. FIGURE 3.3 — Colombia: Using private sectors to issue building permits and developing accountability in an incremental way 1995 1995 1996 1996-1998 2009 2009 First legislation on Introduction of a Improvement of state First decree Establishment of Selection of first liability regimes for risk-based system for oversight mechanism establishing certification system curadores curadores construction permits on private engineers curadores for curadores 1,080 days DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT 51 days (2007) STARTING POINT: RESULTS: Massive backlog at municipality Urban Dept. can focus on its main mandate. Growth of construction industry (+1% GNP) or specialized agency, and that risks of conflict of building controls should always be supported by interests are monitored and minimized. strong safeguards, usually in the form of more stringent qualification requirements for building A comprehensive study conducted by the Delft professionals, as well as robust disciplinary and University of Technology analyzed the results oversight mechanisms. Both countries are now in of involving private sector expertise in building the process of building these checks and balances regulatory enforcement in Australia, Canada, to offer more mature and robust building code and New Zealand.102 Tracing roughly 20 years enforcement systems. In Colombia, the 1995 of building code implementation in these three reform allowed private sector practitioners to issue countries, the study concludes that regimes relying permits104 in order to address serious backlogs and on independent, private, third-party enforcement inefficiencies in the building planning agencies. develop greater inspectoral depth, which leads in This reform was followed over the subsequent turn to “better regulatory goal achievement.” 15 years with the incremental development of qualification requirements for this new category of The same study also warns that introducing private professionals. building controls systems based on private sector third-party mechanisms holds the potential of a loss in “equity and accountability In 1994, the state of Victoria in Australia introduced a competitive system of building controls that allowed private building surveyors as well as municipal councils to issue building permits. Those in the construction industry reported anecdotal cases of private surveyors yielding to commercial pressure by endorsing substandard building practices. The state of Victoria responded by improving oversight mechanisms on building professionals and private surveyors.103 Reforms in FYR Macedonia and Colombia show that the introduction of efficient private 97 98 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE 4 To support code compliance, provide advisory services in addition to inspection and enforcement. 4.1 Enhance the supporting role of regulatory function rather than police 4.2 Use regulatory capacity to coordinate training for building trades, architects enforcement. and engineers, and owner-builders on improved construction techniques and code compliance. 4. To support code compliance, provide compliance with minimum safety standards. advisory services in addition to inspection These advisory efforts targeting building trades and enforcement. and owner-builders with guidance on improved Recommendation 4.1 Enhance the supporting /// /// ** construction techniques and code compliance role of regulatory function rather than should be institutionalized and extended beyond police enforcement. ** reconstruction and applied for long-term risk reduction. Building regulators should make use of existing human resources in building and planning agencies Recommendation 4.2 Use regulatory capacity /// /// ** to reach out to stakeholders and provide technical to coordinate training for building trades, advice and guidance for improved disaster architects and engineers, and owner-builders resilience. This approach should aim to increase on improved construction techniques and compliance with minimum standards of safety in code compliance. ** certain communities and in relation to specific As part of broader building code compliance building practices and local hazards, thus helping strategies, building authorities should use their to reduce risk. As illustrated in the Central Java influence to partner with the private sector and case study (Box 3.12), this approach requires a ensure that all stakeholder groups involved in strong effort in communications by promoting and construction have ongoing access to training. facilitating an advisory role for building inspectors. Training artisans, masons, craftsmen, and It seeks to change behaviors by building trust and construction workers in hazard-resistant methods confidence, as opposed to rely only on punitive approaches and traditional police enforcement. is particularly important. Following the 2006 earthquake in Central Java, Support for large-scale training programs for JICA facilitated an innovative initiative that used construction stakeholders is often part of major the formal building administration capacity and donor-funded post-disaster reconstruction building permitting process to improve the quality programs. All too often, such innovations in and seismic resilience of 330,000 reconstructed training tend to end when the reconstruction non-engineered houses. The initiative provided process is completed; the level of political attention cash transfers to owners involved in post-disaster on risk reduction then begins to drop over reconstruction—conditional on their house passing time. Building on the cutting-edge experience of predefined inspections at three different stages of reconstruction programs, public authorities should construction. Interestingly, before the earthquake, institutionalize effective trainings, beginning with the prevalent form of housing in the area had training in non-engineered and traditional forms of been informal and had escaped any measure of construction that are most vulnerable to hazards. 03 Chapter BOX 3.12 — Case study: Post-earthquake reconstruction in Central Java, Indonesia An opportunity for future disaster risk reduction Results and lessons learned On May 27, 2006, an earthquake of magnitude 6.3 hit the south coast In the end, nearly 330,000 houses were reconstructed under the of Java. The earthquake caused more than 5,000 fatalities, primarily reconstruction fund and subsequently benefited from the improved due to building collapse. It destroyed 154,000 houses and caused quality control mechanisms for previously non-engineered houses. 260,000 others structural damage. As in other developing countries, houses in the villages of Central Java were typically constructed Building on this success, the Ministry of Public Works at the national by nonprofessional owner-builders or village laborers. Damage to level encouraged local governments to adopt similar mechanisms traditional wooden structures was limited. In contrast, unreinforced to improve the resilience of non-engineered housing and extend masonry and nonductile concrete-frame buildings, which utilized the benefits of the reconstruction program more broadly. JICA was nontraditional materials and building practices, suffered severe invited to extend this intervention to additional districts (Kabupaten) damage. and cities (Kota) in West Sumatra, North Sulawesi, and North Sumatra Provinces over the following six years. Soon after the disaster, the local government defined key principles for housing reconstruction in the affected region. These principles At the national level, JICA assisted the Ministry of Public Works in included recommendations for structural safety in housing developing standard models of ordinance for provincial governments reconstruction and provided direct cash transfers to residents based on the Key Requirements. To broaden and sustain the benefit for reconstruction. The cash transfer was made in three tranches of this regulatory advance, JICA also implemented outreach training conditioned on passing inspection at the three stages of the programs on building control for community and local government construction process. Residents were allowed to rebuild themselves officials. or to make use of contractors. The program in Central Java demonstrates how an existing As part of the post-earthquake reconstruction program, JICA regulatory system can be utilized to improve traditional forms of provided assistance through the local government building code non-engineered housing: by using the formal permitting process to administration system. One of JICA’s major contributions, made introduce key engineering concepts like structural resistance, the in partnership with Gadjah Mada University, was to develop “Key program reduced risks in a traditionally vulnerable building type. Requirements,” which consisted of a package of simple technical This experience also shows that established building departments guidance applicable for small one-story houses. The objective of can improve the quality and resilience of non-engineered structures the Key Requirements was to provide specific, simplified technical through education, guidance, and compliance support, rather than guidance on critical structural elements that contribute to greater relying solely on coercive enforcement. resilience in traditional non-engineered construction. Shortly after the To reduce losses in future disasters, the most important challenge is Key Requirements were developed, compliance with them became a to ensure that the process for technical support and inspection can requirement for the government cash transfer program. be institutionalized and sustained over the longer term. This will take JICA supported the provincial government in extending training on the time and a continuous effort that should be part of a broader disaster Key Requirements to the staff of building departments of 17 districts. risk strategy rather than confined to short-term disaster recovery The initiative used the existing formal building administration and programs. This process requires commitment in sustainable financial permitting process to introduce marginal improvement to the quality resources and human capacity improvement, and will involve various and resilience of traditional non-engineered housing. This targeted actors such as national and local governments, community-based and temporary effort was tied to the post-earthquake reconstruction organizations (CBOs), universities, and the private sector, including program in Central Java. This intervention has contributed the the building sector. basis for a potentially permanent increase in quality and safety Source: Dr. Tatsuo Narafu, JICA; Keiko Sakoda Kaneda, World Bank. management for housing in the region. 99 100 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE 5 Take advantage of opportunities for regulatory interventions. 5.1 Prioritize by building function and exposure 5.2 Utilize public building programs as points of 5.3 Exploit disaster experience to advance to hazards. entry for the regulatory process. regulatory policy. 5. Take advantage of opportunities for secondary hazards, such as explosion or toxic regulatory interventions. release (for example, industrial, chemical, or fuel storage). Structures critical to disaster response Recommendation 5.1 Prioritize by building /// /// ** include medical facilities (hospitals and clinics), function and exposure to hazards. ** response capabilities (police and fire stations and Application of regulatory resources should seek to emergency management facilities), and other maximize risk reduction, based on the importance public services buildings. Elevated importance of a structure’s function or occupancy as well as factors also apply to buildings that house its hazard exposure. The priority of function is vulnerable or immobile populations (nursing typically represented by an importance factor, homes, elderly housing, and prisons) and places which increases the requirement for structural of public assembly where exposed populations are resistance to reduce the probability of failure concentrated. Schools have special importance during a hazard event. because of the social priority placed on the safety of children. Elevated importance factors apply to buildings whose functions are critically important The special importance of schools and hospitals immediately following hazard impact, as well has been recognized in targeted initiatives by many as to structures that house functions that pose organizations. The state of California (from 1933), BOX 3.13 — The Pakistan Rural Housing Reconstruction Program, post-2005 earthquake The 2005 earthquake in Pakistan killed over 75,000 people and left Included in this training regime was the construction of model houses more than 2.8 million in need of shelter. The government of Pakistan, at field level to allow trainers to demonstrate seismic-resistant in collaboration with the World Bank and other international partners, construction techniques to masons and craftsmen. After the trainings responded by launching a reconstruction program at a cost of over concluded, the houses were left in place for continual demonstration. $1.5 billion. The masons and craftsmen that underwent this training program were certified, so that homeowners knew they were qualified for the The reconstruction and repair of 600,000 units in scattered reconstruction and repair work. communities required a vast workforce with appropriate skills and training. In response to this need, a “cascaded training” regime Another major innovation was the use of a special corps of building was implemented throughout the affected area to create a critical inspectors. These inspectors not only carried out inspections but also mass of artisans, masons, and craftsmen knowledgeable in seismic provided on-the-spot assistance and training on seismic-resistant standards and methods of construction. The “cascade” was designed standards if, during an inspection visit, the construction was found to to provide training to master trainers at the district level, who would be noncompliant. in turn train craftsmen and the affected population in the widely scattered communities. Source: Arshad and Athar 2013. 03 Chapter the Organization of American States, UNISDR, and Recommendation 5.2 Utilize public /// /// ** GFDRR have all supported safe school construction building programs as points of entry for the and retrofit of existing school buildings. The regulatory process. ** Pan American Health Organization and UNISDR For any new building regulatory program, have addressed the disaster resilience of hospital authorities need to identify feasible points of entry buildings. These occupancy-targeted initiatives or starting points for regulatory intervention. For are important but should be developed as the example, where the public gives building occupancy starting point for broad, comprehensive regulatory high priority, it becomes more feasible to initiate initiatives to reduce disaster risk for the entire the regulatory function. The organizational building stock. management and funding of construction is also In prioritizing buildings, authorities should also a factor in the feasibility of developing regulatory draw on hazard zone maps to differentiate building processes. Design and construction of public school requirements in proportion to expected hazard buildings is typically managed by organizations loads. with technical capacity and budgetary control over projects. These rudimentary capabilities provide Functional importance and hazard exposure the opportunity to demonstrate safe construction should not only be incorporated in the design materials and techniques. The tangible example requirements of the code, they should also be of school construction can be used to instruct reflected in the diligence of review and inspection students, faculty, and the community on the practiced by the regulatory authority. methods and benefits of safer construction. 101 102 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Similarly, in the case of health facilities, a Recommendation 5.3 Exploit disaster /// /// ** construction management capacity and budgetary experience to advance regulatory policy. ** control for construction quality can provide the Timing is a major consideration in identifying a starting point for a demonstration of the building feasible point of entry for a building regulatory regulatory framework. Once the regulatory process. Though life-saving and relief activities process is introduced through these formal sector must be the focus in the immediate aftermath building types, the concepts of safe construction of a disaster, the post-disaster period offers a standards, compliance assistance, and inspection valuable opportunity for introducing or reforming should be expanded to serve other elements of the a building regulatory process. Disaster damage built environment. and loss are eloquent arguments for improving In the case of California, seismic building construction quality. The task of reconstruction regulation was initiated to protect schools and offers an excellent opportunity both for schoolchildren following a damaging earthquake in implementing improved building standards and Long Beach in 1933. From that starting point, the for institutionalizing building regulatory systems state has developed one of the most comprehensive to guide long-term resilient development in the and effective building regulatory systems in the future. world. 105 6 Clearly identify hazard zones and restrict development according to exposure. 6.1 Execute hazard 6.2 Reference 6.3 Execute hazard 6.4 Provide 6.5 Make public 6.6 Institute mapping for hazard zones mapping for ex- infrastructure comprehensive alternative uses potential urban in building isting settlement in safer areas information on to occupy hazard extension areas codes with areas to estab- to direct urban hazard exposure zones. in advance of emphasis on lish priorities expansion and and the rationale unregulated added structural for retrofit and land use. for land use development requirements. relocation. management. to direct new settlement to safer sites. 6. Clearly identify hazard zones and restrict strengthening for resilience. Where possible, urban development according to exposure. expansion should be directed to safer locations Recommendation 6.1 Execute hazard mapping /// /// ** based on hazard mapping before uncontrolled for potential urban extension areas in advance informal settlement occurs. Alternative land uses of unregulated development to direct new should be encouraged for exposed areas such as settlement to safer sites. ** floodplains, coastal hazard zones, and areas of Avoiding hazardous sites is a most efficient means elevated seismic or landslide risk. Hazard mapping of disaster risk reduction. Safe location of new should form an integral part of urban master developments reduces exposure to hazard impact planning, and its rationale should be widely shared and reduces the requirement and cost of structural with the public. 03 Chapter To realize the ultimate benefit of excellent hazard expected hazard event frequency and intensity. mapping initiatives, such as CAPRA (Box 3.14), Such maps can be developed for flood, earthquake, there must be effective mechanisms to ensure that landslide, snow load, wind, and coastal hazards. hazard information is applied to safe siting and to This differentiation of hazard zones is essential improved construction for urban development. for efficient balancing of design requirements for anticipated loads. Recommendation 6.2 Reference hazard /// /// ** zones in building codes with emphasis on added To avoid the economic consequences of overdesign structural requirements. and the safety consequences of underdesign, hazard ** Land use management is a fundamental tool maps must be directly referenced in the building for reducing disaster risk. Historical data and code. Compliance with hazard zone-related probabilistic modeling techniques make possible requirements must be assured through plan review the development of hazard mapping, which and site inspection if the benefit of risk reduction is distinguishes geographic zones in terms of to be achieved. BOX 3.14 — Improving safe construction in Peru through informed building code regulations and seismic hazard knowledge A CAPRA technical assistance project to update and improve the The project’s main objectives were to existing seismic hazard information in Peru, a country with a history of seismic activity, was carried out from late 2010 until March 2012. • Prepare national level seismic information and maps for regulatory This helped to support the Peruvian national and local governments purposes, and in getting better access to seismic hazard information as an input • Contribute to reducing risk resulting from inadequate design or for any disaster risk reduction measures and activities (related, for construction. The results were incorporated into the update of the example, to loss of life, infrastructure, buildings, and basic services). seismic design standard led by a governmental special committee. Seismic hazard information can be represented as maps and provide a visual and spatial understanding of seismic hazard. Maps and The seismic hazard information produced under the CAPRA project other seismic hazard information enable the scientific community, is now used as an input in the seismic risk assessment developed government authorities, and the general public to be better informed to inform retrofitting and replacement choices for the school and plan for potential future events. infrastructure in Lima. In addition, this information provides the necessary inputs to enable The ability to access hazard and risk information will allow institutions authorities to improve building standards by incorporating seismic responsible for building design standards to improve these standards design concepts in the construction of schools, hospitals, office and will contribute to a more effective building code regime. buildings, and large public works. Technical and scientific institutions will need to regularly update this information through continuous research and additional data. The Peru probabilistic seismic hazard assessment exercise was However, the benefit of hazard maps and the critical information that the product of a technical assistance project using the CAPRA they provide will only be realized if building codes are adequately probabilistic risk assessment software platform. The project was enforced in Peru. sponsored and technically supported by the World Bank, funded by the Spanish Fund for Latin America and the Caribbean, and Source: Geophysical Institute of Peru; World Bank CAPRA Technical implemented by the Geophysical Institute of Peru. CAPRA is a free Assistance Project 2012 and open-source platform for probabilistic risk analysis to better inform decision making in disaster risk management. 103 104 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE BOX 3.15 — How the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) makes information on hazard available to the public One mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is to develop and Science provides the information that decision makers need to apply hazard science to help protect the safety and security of the determine whether risk management activities are worthwhile. U.S. The costs and consequences of natural hazards can be quite Moreover, as the agency with the perspective of geologic time, the significant, and each year more people and infrastructure are at USGS is uniquely positioned to broaden society’s perspective with risk. USGS scientific research can help to explain and reduce natural information about events outside current memory - and in this way hazard risks by effectively communicating reliable information about prepare society for similar events. The USGS has critical statutory hazard characteristics, such as frequency, magnitude, extent, onset, and nonstatutory roles regarding floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, consequences, and, where possible, the time of future events. landslides, coastal erosion, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, and magnetic storms. To accomplish its broad hazard mission, the USGS maintains an expert workforce of scientists and technicians in hydrology, biology, and USGS produces and disseminates maps and other public information geography, as well as earth, social, and behavioral sciences and other on the above-listed natural hazards to guide public and private fields. It engages cooperatively with numerous agencies, research decision making regarding disaster risk and risk reduction measures. institutions, and organizations in the public and private sectors across These resources are made available to the public in a range of formats the U.S. and around the world. including digital. Source: U.S. Geological Survey. Recommendation 6.3 Execute hazard mapping /// /// ** and critical community functions in existing for existing settlement areas to establish settlements must be identified and dealt with on a priorities for retrofit and relocation. ** priority basis. Hazard mapping for areas of existing settlements is Recommendation 6.4 Provide infrastructure /// /// ** critically important for identifying and prioritizing in safer areas to direct urban expansion and highly exposed and vulnerable areas. Defined land use.** hazard zones in existing settlements provide When infrastructure services—such as water, the basis for allocating resources for eventual sanitation, electric power, and communications— relocation, retrofit, or increased vigilance for are provided to existing slums or informal response and relief planning. settlements, the cost has been two to three times as much as similar service provided at the outset of Even in rapidly expanding urban areas, the greatest development.106 concentration of risk is likely to reside in previously unregulated existing areas. While this residual risk Preference for development in safer areas must be addressed, at present it is most important can effectively be led by rational and efficient and most cost-effective to stop the expansion of installation of infrastructure service systems. risk in areas of new development. The financial and This requires collective community organization social costs of demolition and resettlement, or even and specific technical ability involving formal structural retrofit, are far greater than the marginal sector competencies. The informal construction added costs of safe siting and construction of new sector has demonstrated impressive productivity development. At the same time, the coincidence of in building houses on individual plots. This type extreme exposure, extreme structural vulnerability, of construction can often be more efficiently 03 Chapter carried out by less formal, owner-driven processes. with hazard information to factor into longer-term Flexible and adaptive regulatory service delivery planning for security and advancement. can provide the benefit of appropriate technical Recommendation 6.6 Institute alternative support and inspection to assure health, safety, and /// /// ** uses to occupy hazard zones. disaster resilience. ** Urban land is at a premium in all parts of the Recommendation 6.5 Make public world. The advantages of proximity to services /// /// ** comprehensive information on hazard exposure and employment create a powerful force for and the rationale for land use management. development of convenient but unsafe sites. In ** Public understanding of hazard exposure is order to preclude informal land invasions or fundamental to informed choice. Information on market pressures for development, alternative historical hazard impacts and scientific projection uses for hazardous areas should be defined and of future hazard impacts must be shared in a form implemented. Hazardous sites may be developed that supports informed public and individual for low-occupancy activities such as urban decision making. Although natural disaster risk agriculture or park and recreation areas. Such uses may not be a dominant short-term concern of new of hazardous areas serve to inhibit development arrivals to urban areas, they should be provided and minimize new exposure to disaster risk. BOX 3.16 — Limitation of development in hazard zones: Allowable land use in floodplains in Minnesota, United States In the state of Minnesota, land use and building regulation measures The key building standards that meet state and federal law ** have been applied to reduce flood losses in the United States. As a result, for some parts of the floodplain or in some communities, • No placement of fill is permitted in the floodway. options for permissible land use are very limited. In other parts of the • Top (that is, walking surface) of the lowest floor (including floodplain, most uses are allowed, but structures must be elevated or basement or crawl space) is at or above the RFPE. flood-proofed to maintain public safety and minimize risk of property damage during a flood. Communities will be regulated according to • Fill outside the floodway is at 100-year flood elevation plus zones, which include low-density residential, high-density residential, floodway stage increase, or higher, extending at least 15 feet commercial, industrial, and open space. A community can specify the horizontally from all sides of the structure. allowable uses in each zone. • An “as built” survey is submitted to the zoning authority to verify Allowable floodway uses that the development was built at the permitted elevation. ** ** • Open space uses and limited grading and earth moving may • All local ordinance requirements, including setback requirements be permitted if they do not create an obstruction or cause any (that is, from lot lines and for shore land management or wild and increase in the flood levels. Uses such as gardens, farming, parks, scenic rivers ordinances), are met. Many communities also require trails, or golf courses may be allowed depending on zoning district. that the access (driveway and access roads) elevation is no lower than 2 feet below the RFPE. • New structures, additions to existing structures, and substantial improvements to existing structures are prohibited. Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Ecological & Water Resources. • Construction should be outside the floodplain, with the lowest floor (including basement) above the regulatory flood protection elevation (RFPE). The RFPE is the 100-year flood (1 percent annual probability flood) elevation. The lowest floor must be elevated so that its walking surface is at the RFPE or higher. 105 106 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE 7 7 Advance supporting institutions. 7.1 Improve regimes of 7.2 Increase the account- 7.3 Improve the capability 7.4 Leverage housing 7.5 Mobilize market tenure security to ability of building and accountability of finance mechanisms to demand for safer create greater incentive professionals by regulatory agencies spur investment into buildings. for compliance. increasing liability through quality control safer housing. regimes backed by measures. insurance mechanisms. 7. Advance supporting institutions. consistently shows that possession of greater tenure security results in greater investments in the An effective agenda to improve regulatory structure, as well as improved social outcomes.107 implementation in low- and middle-income countries should not focus only on core land No single prescriptive path leads to secured land use and building code system elements. There tenure and property rights, but a wide range of are contributing institutions and regulatory policy and regulatory instruments can help address instruments, all part of a larger regulatory certain challenges and be adapted to meet local ecosystem, that play an equally important role in conditions. UN-Habitat regularly advocates the achieving compliant and safe construction. While use of various alternative tenure options that can the list of such institutions and instruments is be adapted to circumstances in any area. It also potentially long, the impact of proactive reforms promotes a cost-effective incremental approach to in the following areas is particularly worth noting: strengthening tenure rights, so that authorities can security of tenure, liability mechanisms for building build capacity for more comprehensive and locally professionals, accountability instruments for sensitive long-term options (Box 3.17). planning and building departments, and housing finance mechanisms (with a focus on those Furthermore, Peru’s experience from 1996 to targeting lower-income groups). The selection 2004 demonstrates that land titling programs can and prioritization of reforms across the larger be very expensive without necessarily achieving field of regulatory institutions should be based on their objectives.108 Many low-income households a careful evaluation of local circumstances and prefer the social cohesion that customary tenure development priorities. arrangements can provide, or the mobility offered by renting, as long as they enjoy adequate security Recommendation 7.1 Improve regimes of and land protection.109 /// /// ** tenure security to create greater incentive for compliance. ** Recommendation 7.2 Increase the /// /// ** accountability of building professionals The stronger land security is, the easier it is by increasing liability regimes backed by for households to invest in land, safer building insurance mechanisms. ** materials, and more resilient forms of construction. This is particularly relevant to low-income groups. There is an opportunity to leverage insurance Any effort to improve building code compliance mechanisms into a strong driver of regulatory therefore depends on a larger commitment to land compliance. This opportunity is more relevant to policy and land management reforms. Research middle- and upper-middle-income countries, where BOX 3.17 — UN-Habitat’s proposed incremental approach to improving tenure security 1. Provide basic short-term security for all households living necessarily full titles. A simple option is to allocate community- in slums and unauthorized settlements and with informal or based leases for a designated period, with options for extension. customary rights in urban, peri-urban, and rural areas. This can be best achieved through land proclamations, or through a 4. Where effective local land management arrangements are simple statement by the relevant minister, for a specific period in place, communities can be offered long-term tenure, for (typically three to nine months). instance through Community Land Trusts, community-based titles, or cooperatives. 2. During this period, survey all extra-legal settlements in urban and peri-urban areas and identify any that need to be 5. Households seeking individual titles obtain the agreement of the relocated. Offer residents priority for relocation to sites with community, agree on property boundaries with their neighbors, close access to livelihood opportunities together with long-term and are responsible for financing and completing the necessary tenure options. legal and administrative procedures, including the appointment and payment of surveyors and lawyers and property legislation. 3. Designate all other extra-legal settlements as entitled to medium-term forms of tenure with enhanced rights though not Source: Kagawa 2002. the insurance industry can exercise a growing In high-income settings such as Canada, building influence and increase its market penetration professional associations often require, through over time. In France, for example, private liability public legislation, that their members carry insurance and insurance carried by building insurance. Where conditions allow it, other professionals and private inspectors are by far the countries require a broad range of building main drivers promoting compliance with building professionals to carry liability insurance. Victoria, standards.110 Australia, requires designers, draftspersons, and contractors to carry liability insurance, and Assuming that market conditions are appropriate, it enforces this requirement through a builder meaning that there is a sufficiently established registration system. insurance industry, government authorities should consider mandating building professionals to Recommendation 7.3 Improve the capability /// /// ** carry a reasonable level of liability insurance. This and accountability of regulatory agencies through would cover most claims likely to be encountered quality control measures. ** by designers, contractors, or public or private The initiative to establish and maintain the inspection agencies. accountability of local building regulatory agencies should be based on formal systems of For policy makers, a particular challenge associated quality management and accreditation. National with the introduction of liability insurance is to authorities should take the lead in mandating local avoid creating yet another barrier to entry for building authorities to become accredited. smaller and new entrants into the building design or construction businesses. At the same time, it is Well-established systems of accreditation for important to avoid instances of unfair competition, building regulatory agencies are in place in high- where responsible firms that obtain insurance income countries (for example, the International are competing against firms that are unable Accreditation Service [IAS] of the ICC in the or unwilling to obtain insurance (and that can U.S.). Despite concerns expressed in this report therefore provide services at a lower cost). about transposing practices from high-income 107 108 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE to low-income countries, agency accreditation Zealand, which introduced state accreditation of and staff certification offer operational models municipal building consent authorities as part and functioning principles relevant to municipal of its Building Act of 2004. The accreditation building control activities in developing countries, and registration scheme in New Zealand was with appropriate adaptation. established to promote consistent, standardized, and good-quality practices in building control The IAS provides independent third-party and to ensure better technical capabilities and recognition that a municipal building department is resourcing, including adequate processes to competent to carry out specific code enforcement respond to disaster risks. activities. The IAS is a nonprofit, public-benefit corporation that has been providing accreditation In July 2013, in an act that illustrates both the services since 1975. It is a subsidiary of the ICC, a creation of accountability and the consequences professional membership association that develops attached to lower standards of institutional the construction codes and standards used by delivery, International Accreditation New Zealand most municipalities within the United States. Its (IANZ) withdrew its accreditation of the Building accreditation criteria reflect a strong commitment Consent Authority (BCA) of Christchurch. The to maintaining transparency and procedural justice, grounds were deteriorating quality and speed of the an appropriate quality of service delivery, and a building’s consent processes as well as insufficient transparency. The BCA eventually regained its capacity to respond to natural hazards impacting status at the end of 2014 after implementing construction (see Box 3.18). a broad action plan that, among other things, While the IAS model of accreditation is primarily streamlined administrative procedures, reduced voluntary and provided by a private nonprofit compliance costs, promoted more efficient services public-benefit corporation, government authorities to customers, and refocused decision making on may also consider the innovative model of New risk-based principles.111 BOX 3.18 — Three major themes in the IAS accreditation process In strong alignment with recommendations made in this chapter, the controls (2.25), and there should be a tracking system for continuing IAS accreditation criteria for building departments typically determine education requirements (3.3.8). whether the local authority is committed, among other things to A sufficient focus on disaster risks: The agency should provide ** ** ** Transparency and procedural justice: The accreditation requires ** evidence that staff have met training requirements for performing that the building department provides documented evidence of post-disaster assessments and making substantial damage steps taken to avoid potential conflict of interests (3.2.6); that determinations in flood hazard areas. Two other DRR-related complaints and appeal mechanisms are in place for administrative requirements include (a) the development and disclosure of adequate decisions taken by the department (2.5); and that there is evidence information on wind zones, flood hazard areas, seismic areas, or of community outreach activities and disclosure of important other geologic risk zones (3.1.2), and (b) demonstration by building documentation to the public (3.2.21). departments their preparation is coordinated with other departments when they identify damaged buildings and conduct safety inspections Quality of service delivery: A system must be in place to regularly ** ** after a hazard event (3.2.3). measure progress in meeting service goals such as turnaround time (2.28). Quality assurance programs must be in place and include a Source: IAS, “Accreditation Criteria for Building Departments and range of self-imposed standards, such as audits and management Building Code Enforcement Agencies, AC251.” 03 Chapter Recommendation 7.4 Leverage housing /// /// ** titles, they now have a stronger incentive to invest finance mechanisms to spur investment into in home improvements. safer housing.** The combination of housing finance (to reduce the Wider access to housing is typically correlated structural risks of incremental construction) and with increased economic growth and urban the monitoring of construction quality (to ensure development. However, in most emerging code compliance) serves to protect both the health economies, access to housing finance remains and safety of buildings occupants and the collateral predominantly limited to middle- and upper- of the mortgage lender. income households with stable and verifiable income. Only in a few countries, such as Mexico or Housing finance can be offered on the condition Malaysia, have mortgage lenders reached down to that the structure to be financed conforms to code finance moderate- or median-income households. and zoning requirements. In the case of financial assistance for reconstruction following the 2005 In countries with underdeveloped housing finance earthquake in Pakistan, financing was provided systems, buildings are constructed incrementally in increments conditioned on passing inspection and informally with low-quality building materials at each of the stages of the construction process. and thus do not comply with planning and building The first tranche of funding was provided on code regulations.112 Under such circumstances, safe approval of the site, the second on the completion code-compliant construction is difficult to attain. and approval of the foundation, the third on the Enumerating the requirements of a sustainable completion of the walls, and the final payment after housing finance system exceeds the scope of approval of the completed structure. This proved this report. However, as part of targeted efforts a very effective means to ensure code compliance. to reduce disaster and chronic risks, public This strict control was justified to protect the authorities should address housing finance needs collateral, not to mention the well-being of the of low-income and underserved households. building occupant in specific conditions of the As highlighted earlier, low-income groups are subsidized reconstruction program. consistently more exposed to chronic and natural hazard-related risks. Where mortgage financing is offered in a nondisaster situation, a similar requirement Authorities should try in particular to support for code compliance can be exercised with the sustainable housing microfinance (HMF) in low- cooperation of the local regulatory authority. Such and middle-income countries. HMF portfolios control clearly benefits both the owner/occupant remain small in proportion to GDP or bank assets, and the lender in terms of protecting the value of but have managed to reach a relatively large scale in places like Peru. Here, more than 1.2 million the loan. In sophisticated construction markets, households have benefited from HMF within the lenders can require the participation of insurers framework of title formalization programs in the to guarantee the value of the loan. In this case, past few years. Peru shows that, under the right the feasibility of underwriting is facilitated by the conditions, HMF can effectively address the needs competence of the local regulatory authority in of poor households and become a lucrative line assuring both code compliance and reasonably of business for banks. In addition, because these predictable building performance under prescribed households have also achieved security in their loads. 109 110 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Neither lenders nor insurers have the capacity incorporated in building design and construction. to manage plan review or site inspection This reduction can, in turn, increase access to independently. The presence of a competent mortgage financing. Public incentives for measures regulatory authority and an adequate building going beyond code requirements can include code makes this type of leverage for public flexibility in zoning or parking requirements. safety possible. The majority of voluntary compliance instruments Recommendation 7.5 Mobilize market demand /// /// ** have emerged in developed countries in the field for safer buildings. ** of “building sustainability” focused on energy and resource use efficiency. However, sustainability also In a range of developed countries, building codes refers to disaster resilience. Leading international are recognized as a minimum acceptable standard green building standards such as LEED, BREEAM, of construction. Despite the fact that this minimum and Green Star are now starting to incorporate standard can provide the basis for calculating elements and credits relating to climate resilience. insurance premiums, it does not necessarily correspond to owner demand or expectations Additionally, there are resilience designation for resilient building performance. Voluntary programs for homes such as “Resilience Star” standards that exceed code requirements have and the Institute for Business and Home Safety been developed for several aspects of building “Fortified Home” program in the U.S. Both performance, including energy efficiency and initiatives are based on the market value of certified disaster resilience. added safety. The market approach leads to safer building products through profit-oriented response In response to market demand, the private sector to informed consumer demand. and NGOs have developed independent programs of performance certification to certify design and A recent initiative led by UNISDR, in collaboration construction that meet performance standards with the Pacific Asia Travel Association and beyond those provided for by codes. The success Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale of independent building certification programs Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), is now working with a such as LEED and Fortified Homes (Institute for wide range of public and private stakeholders in Business and Home Safety) and Resilience Star the tourism sector. The Hotel Resilient Initiative (U.S. Department of Homeland Security) show the aims to develop standards and tools for hotels value of building safety in the real estate market. and resorts that can be used to demonstrate Buildings certified as above-code enjoy higher commitment to disaster resilience and customer valuation in the market and demonstrate market safety. This initiative recognizes safety as a market incentives for greater investment in building safety value. and resilience. When the consumer recognizes the As noted earlier in this chapter, there is a good value of resilient construction and is willing to pay argument to introduce noncoercive instruments a premium for such quality, the market becomes an into compliance strategies. About 15-20 years’ effective driver of safe construction. experience in green building rating systems shows Voluntary choice of higher levels of building that voluntary mechanisms can be creatively performance can be incentivized by both private combined with regulatory instruments to support and public means. Insurance companies can reduce more in-depth market transformations. For premiums when risk reduction measures are example, in Turkey, BEP-TR mandates a minimum 03 Chapter “C” energy efficiency label for any new buildings. incentives. For example, municipalities in India are Although attaining “C” is mandatory, the “A” and now supporting voluntary building sustainability “B” ratings are voluntary and are respectively 40 standards through a wide range of nonfiscal and 20 percent more efficient than the “C” level. incentives, including expedited building or Compliance with “A” and “B” levels is encouraged zoning permits, expedited plan reviews, increased through an incentive program allowing a local bank floor area ratio (FAR) and density bonuses, and to provide lower interest rates on mortgages and permitted mixed-use development. The same construction loans.113 range of cost-effective instruments could support a larger market take-up of standards for resilient As dedicated building resilience standards construction. and certification systems make their way into developing countries, there is an opportunity for local governments to promote these instruments as supporting mechanisms for risk reduction. Local governments can facilitate this process by providing incentives, especially nonfinancial FIGURE 3.4 — A range of non-financial incentives that can be used in support of voluntary standards Key Measures Benefits to Investor PERMITTING PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS Expedited planning, zoning, or land Fast-track process for planning & zoning approvals use approval can save substantial time and money to developers, speed up sales and strengthen cash flow. Expedited plan review of Will provide the same benefit as above. building permit Streamlined & expedited This measure can take the form of a predetermined building inspections time limit (e.g. 48 hours) for the building control au- thority to conduct compliance checks (conformity to original building plans and compliance with building code requirements). This measure could be applied to all inspections including the final inspection in support to the occupancy permit. LAND USE CHANGES Increased floor area and Density bonuses grant additional height or “floor area density bonuses ratio” (FAR) to developers than allowed by the zoning code. Bonus density allows developers to increase floor space on projects, which in turn increase profits. Permitted mixed-use This measure would allow exceptions in the development enforcement of land use and zoning requirements and building types authorized in specific locations. 111 112 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE 03 Chapter administrative resources in low- and middle- 3.3— Conclusion income countries, particularly at the local level. Building and land use regulation has proven to Though these recommendations focus on the be an effective tool for risk reduction in the core components of the regulatory process, it is developed world. To date, such regulatory measures clear that successful building regulation depends have proven ineffective in low- and middle-income on the functioning of key supporting institutions. countries. The recommendations in this chapter Investment in building professional education, are based on the review of ineffective or failed building finance and insurance, and increased regulation in Chapter 1 and the review of effective security of tenure can contribute significantly to regulation, especially regulation that has involved code compliance and building safety. solving specific problems, in Chapter 2. This agenda outlined above provides the basis The reform agenda outlined above seeks to for a proposed Building Regulation for Resilience improve the effectiveness and efficiency of building Program to support the development of building regulation, and so guide urban development to less and land use regulatory capacity in low- and hazardous locations and less vulnerable structures. middle-income countries. That program is presented in the next chapter. An effective building regulatory regime begins with the foundation of national legislation that establishes rights and responsibilities, including organizational responsibilities for the core regulatory process. This foundation must be properly designed and executed both to support the organizational structure for development and maintenance of context-appropriate codes and standards, and to facilitate code implementation at municipal and local levels. The characteristics of successful code development processes and documents are known. The major burden of regulatory implementation and compliance falls at the local level. The recommendations in this chapter relate to administrative practice, compliance support, and procedural justice. They point to education and training for building professionals and builders, as well as advisory support to facilitate code compliance, as a valuable complement to the normal processes of review, inspection, and enforcement. Specific recommendations are directed to the efficient allocation of regulatory resources to maximize risk reduction—a process that must take into account the limited 113 114 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE 3.4— Summary of recommendations 1 Establish a sound legislative and administrative structure at the national level. 1.1. Establish a legislative foundation for a building 1.2. Adopt a legal framework to support the effec- 1.3. Adopt other critical legislation that contributes and land use regulatory authority to protect tive enforcement of building code regulations to compliant construction. public health and safety and reduce disaster at the local level. and chronic risk. 2 Develop a building code suitable to local social and economic conditions that facilitates safe use of local building materials and practices. 2.1 Establish 2.2 Adopt a local 2.3 Develop a 2.4 Establish building 2.5 Provide for wide 2.6 Create and an open, building code comprehensive materials testing dissemination of maintain public participatory, referencing an building code and certification code documents awareness of ba- consensus-based established that covers the laboratories that and training for sic safe construc- process for code model code while full range of are accessible to builders and tion principles for development. incorporating relevant con- major construc- owners based on the community, necessary adap- struction types tion zones. code documen- building owners, tations to local and practices. tation. and informal context. sector builders. 3 Strengthen implementation of building code through plan review, site inspection, and permitting at the local level. 3.1 Enhance compliance by 3.2 Communicate changes 3.3 Establish conflict 3.4 Provide funding and 3.5 Simplify and reengineer applying principles of associated with local resolution and appeal support to building building permitting and procedural justice and building regulatory mechanisms. departments at the local inspections procedures. transparency. reforms. level with technically qualified and adequate- ly compensated building officials. 3.6 Apply ICT to support 3.7 Apply risk management 3.8 Apply fee levels con- 3.9 Leverage resources 3.10 Create robust increased efficiency to construction permits sistent with the cost of from the private sector accountability and transparency and inspections. regulatory services. for more efficient and mechanisms around of building control effective compliance public-private part- procedures. checks mechanisms. nerships in building code compliance checks. 03 Chapter 4 To support code compliance, provide advisory services in addition to inspection and enforcement. 4.1 Enhance the supporting role of regulatory function rather than police 4.2 Use regulatory capacity to coordinate training for building trades, architects enforcement. and engineers, and owner-builders on improved construction techniques and code compliance. 5 Take advantage of opportunities for regulatory interventions. 5.1 Prioritize by building function and exposure 5.2 Utilize public building programs as points of 5.3 Exploit disaster experience to advance to hazards. entry for the regulatory process. regulatory policy. 6 Clearly identify hazard zones and restrict development according to exposure. 6.1 Execute hazard 6.2 Reference 6.3 Execute hazard 6.4 Provide 6.5 Make public 6.6 Institute mapping for hazard zones mapping for ex- infrastructure comprehensive alternative uses potential urban in building isting settlement in safer areas information on to occupy hazard extension areas codes with areas to estab- to direct urban hazard exposure zones. in advance of emphasis on lish priorities expansion and and the rationale unregulated added structural for retrofit and land use. for land use development requirements. relocation. management. to direct new settlement to safer sites. 7 7 Advance supporting institutions. 7.1 Improve regimes of 7.2 Increase the account- 7.3 Improve the capability 7.4 Leverage housing 7.5 Mobilize market tenure security to ability of building and accountability of finance mechanisms to demand for safer create greater incentive professionals by regulatory agencies spur investment into buildings. for compliance. increasing liability through quality control safer housing. regimes backed by measures. insurance mechanisms. 115 Programmatic Opportunities potential of effective building regulations in 4.1— A programmatic risk reduction. There is a largely unexploited proposal in support of opportunity to pool global experience from the Sendai Framework for developed and developing countries at a larger Action agenda scale in order to adapt lessons learned to vulnerable cities and disaster-prone areas in a This report calls for an expanded and coordinated selective, incremental way. This chapter outlines international effort to improve regulatory a proposed programmatic approach, providing implementation capacity in disaster-prone low- a path for implementing Priority 3 of the Sendai and middle-income countries through knowledge Framework for Action agenda. This approach builds sharing and investment. It has established that on the recommendations presented in Chapter 3. building and land use regulation has not been Achieving risk reduction in the most vulnerable effectively implemented as an essential component areas will considerably depend on how other of disaster and chronic risk reduction in low- and development initiatives succeed in helping the middle-income countries. Disaster risk reduction poor access better and safer housing and essential will only remain an aspiration until competent services. The program would seek to build regulatory regimes and compliance mechanisms synergies with related programs such as upgrading are established. of informal settlements, affordable housing In March 2015, the Sendai Framework for Disaster projects, housing finance, land development and Risk Reduction reasserted the strong international use policies, regularization initiatives, and post- consensus to act now by expanding the full disaster reconstruction programs. 116 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE 04 Chapter A new Building Regulation for Resilience Program The program will be structured around is outlined in this chapter. Given the evolutionary four components: nature of building regulatory regimes, this program 1. Developing national level legislation is primarily about initiating, and firmly setting and institutions countries on track toward accomplishing, effective 2. Developing, updating, and maintaining building reforms. Recognizing the incremental process of codes regulatory development, the intent of the program 3. Investing in local regulatory implementation and is to accelerate the application of scientific and compliance support engineering knowledge to building practice. 4. Maintaining strong support for regulatory reform at the international level through knowledge 4.2—Program strategic goal sharing, communications, and measurement of results The strategic goal of the program is to reduce A brief description of the program components human and economic losses by limiting the is provided in Section 4.3. Based on local creation of new risks and reducing existing risks in circumstances, each component will focus the built environments of low- and middle-income on implementing a relevant subset of the countries. By implementing building regulation and supporting active compliance, the program recommendations developed in Chapter 3. will accelerate the application of current scientific The specific recommendations under each and engineering understanding to a safer built component serve as the basis to establish a generic environment. work program. It is anticipated that each cluster The program will provide technical assistance and of recommendations will be modified to create a support targeted investment activities with a focus locally applicable work program that will fit the on strengthening implementation capacity at the particular development needs of the national or municipal level. local intervention. FIGURE 4.1 — Building Regulation for Resilience Program Component 1 National level intervention National Level Develops the national enabling legal and administrative framework for the Legislation and Institutions establishment and enforcement of land use and building regulations. Country-level interventions National and municipal level intervention Component 2 Building Code Development Sets out minimum requirements for safe construction of new buildings and retrofit and Maintenance of existing buildings. Creates permanent updating mechanisms and incorporates updated risk hazard assessments. Component 3 Municipal level intervention Local Implementation Supports the introduction of building code implementation mechanisms such as plan reviews, inspections, and permitting, as well as training of engineers and builders. Component 4 International level intervention Knowledge Sharing Contributes to effective international effort to promote knowledge of good 117 and Measurement practice and supports measurement of risk reduction in construction. 118 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE funding opportunities often available through 4.3— Program activities central government channels. Component 1 will and institutions guide the development of quality control measures set at the national level. This will then ensure that At the country level, the program will deploy regulatory reforms are effective at strengthening Components 1, 2, and 3, which involve building code implementation at the local level. interdependent activities to be initiated simultaneously. Components of the regulatory If there is demand, Component 1 could also regime can be strengthened in parallel at the include improvement to other supporting central and local level. Country interventions will institutions through legislation; these supporting assume a three- to four-year timeline consistent institutions include those involved in accreditation with the time required to set reforms on track processes for building authorities, licensing of and complete the key recommendations from building professionals, development of liability Chapter 3. and insurance mechanisms, and enhancement of housing finance instruments as they relate Component 1: National Level Legislation to code compliance and disaster risk reduction. and Institutions The contribution of these institutions to code- compliant and safe construction would have to be Based on locally defined priorities, activities reviewed. under this component will establish or improve the national legislative framework so that it Within this component, financial investment would can mandate the construction of safe buildings aim to fund national hazard mapping programs and enable the construction process to proceed and to expand the risk-based regulatory capacity of efficiently. This component of the program central authorities. will review national level regulations and legal Recommendations presented in Chapter 3 help provisions regarding the licensing and disciplinary define a core development agenda under this oversight of the major stakeholders in the component. They include the following: construction process. It will review the adequacy of appeals processes associated with administrative 1.1 Establish a legislative foundation for a building decisions made by local authorities. and land use regulatory authority to protect public health and safety and reduce disaster Because municipalities are often funded by national and chronic risk. governments and are not always independent 1.2 Adopt a legal framework to support the in their decision making, national authorities effective enforcement of building code may exert considerable influence on how regulations at the local level. municipalities allocate regulatory resources and on what mechanisms for risk management they 1.3 Adopt other legislation that contributes to adopt. In administratively centralized forms of compliant construction. governments, Component 1 will provide advice on 5.1 Prioritize by building function and exposure risk management to relevant national authorities. to hazards. Component 1 is expected to support central 5.2 Utilize public building programs as points of government authorities in developing a entry for the regulatory process. comprehensive national coverage of hazard 5.3 Exploit disaster experience to advance mapping, which is a highly specialized task with regulatory policy. 04 Chapter 6.1 Execute hazard mapping for potential urban bodies, in an open and consensus-oriented extension areas in advance of unregulated deliberative process. development to direct new settlement to Component 2 will implement measures ensuring safer sites. that hazard mapping is appropriately referenced 6.2 Reference hazard zones in building codes with in the local building code, and that the building emphasis on added structural requirements. code covers the full range of prevalent forms of 6.3 Execute hazard mapping for existing construction (from sophisticated engineered settlement areas to establish priorities for structures to traditional and indigenous retrofit and relocation. construction). Codes should address a range of building-related issues, including structural, 6.4 Provide infrastructure in safer areas to direct electrical, mechanical, plumbing, fire, and energy urban expansion and land use. conservation. Particular attention should be paid 6.5 Make public comprehensive information on to criteria for evaluating and improving vulnerable hazard exposure and the rationale for land existing buildings. use management. Under this component, research will be pursued 6.6 Institute alternative uses to occupy to improve the safety of local construction hazard zones. methods, based on local materials and construction 7.1 Improve regimes of tenure security to create practices. This component will support building greater incentive for compliance. code implementation through the dissemination 7.2 Increase the accountability of building of regulatory documents as well as training for professionals by increasing liability regimes building practitioners in code-compliant design backed by insurance mechanisms. and construction. Further support will be provided 7.3 Improve the capability and accountability to establish an adequate network of accredited of regulatory agencies through quality facilities for testing and certifying building control measures. materials. 7.4 Leverage housing finance mechanisms to spur Direct investment under this component investment into safer housing. will involve funding of materials testing 7.5 Mobilize market demand for safer buildings. facilities and equipment, training of staff, and funding of accreditation programs of product- Component 2: Building Code testing laboratories. Development and Maintenance The recommendations of Chapter 3 relevant to this Component 2 supports the development of locally component include the following: implementable building codes, including the 2.1 Establish an open, participatory, consensus- adaptation of national model codes. Activities based process for code development. under this component will help establish the basic institutional capacity to develop, adapt, and update 2.2 Adopt a local building code referencing an appropriate standards of construction through established model code but incorporating participative and transparent processes at the necessary adaptations to local context. national level. Efforts associated with Component 2.3 Develop a comprehensive building code that 2 will engage local and central stakeholders, covers the full range of relevant construction including scientific, engineering, and research types and practices. 119 120 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE 2.4 Establish building materials testing and programs for architects, engineers, planners, certification laboratories accessible to major and buildings trades. Funding can support the construction zones. procurement and installation of ICT infrastructure 2.5 Provide for wide dissemination of code for online building permitting and inspection documents and training for builders and systems and, when feasible, integration into larger owners based on code documentation. eGovernment services. 2.6 Create and maintain public awareness of The recommendations of Chapter 3 relevant to this basic safe construction principles for the component include the following: community, building owners, and informal 3.1 Enhance compliance by applying principles of sector builders. procedural justice and transparency. Component 3: Local Implementation 3.2 Communicate changes associated with local Activities under this component will provide building regulatory reforms. advice to and investment in enhanced regulatory 3.3 Establish conflict resolution and implementation capacity at the local level. appeal mechanisms. Advisory activities will strengthen the core 3.4 Provide funding and support to building building control functions of preconstruction departments at the local level with technically plan reviews, site inspections, and permitting by leveraging new instruments described in Chapter qualified and adequately compensated 3. These functions will also be strengthened by building officials. improving technical outreach services to designers 3.5 Simplify and reengineer building permitting and builders to support code-compliant design and inspections procedures. and construction. 3.6 Apply ICT to support increased efficiency and The objectives of the program are to limit transparency of building control procedures. the expansion of disaster risk in future urban 3.7 Apply risk management to construction development and to reduce disaster risk in existing permits and inspections. vulnerable communities. Greater regulatory capacity for new construction will provide a 3.8 Apply fee levels consistent with the cost of foundation for extending regulatory practice to regulatory services. the inspection and improvement of vulnerable 3.9 Leverage resources from the private sector existing buildings. Risk reduction in existing for more efficient and effective compliance precode settlements poses special challenges that check mechanisms. will require an augmented building regulatory 3.10 Create robust accountability mechanisms capacity and an extended period of execution. around public-private partnerships in building Assessment and intervention in occupied existing buildings require particular sensitivity to social and code compliance checks. economic factors. 4.1 Enhance the supporting role of regulatory function rather than police enforcement. Concrete opportunities for direct investment include training for building department staff 4.2 Use regulatory capacity to coordinate training and inspectors to enhance both their advisory for building trades, architects, engineers, and and enforcement capacity. Funding can also be owner-builders on improved construction directed to code-based professional training techniques and code compliance. 04 Chapter 5.1 Prioritize by building function and exposure Component 4: Knowledge Sharing to hazards. and Measurement 5.2 Utilize public building programs as points of While Components 1, 2, and 3 will be deployed in entry for the regulatory process. specific country interventions, activities under Component 4 will expand the international reach of 5.3 Exploit disaster experience to advance the program. This component will provide access to regulatory policy. common technical, legal, and regulatory resources 6.1 Execute hazard mapping for potential urban as well as to shared experience of regulatory extension areas in advance of unregulated implementation and common measurements of regulatory performance. It will also advance the development to direct new settlement to regulatory agenda of the Sendai Framework for safer sites. Disaster Risk Reduction. 6.2 Reference hazard zones in building codes with emphasis on added structural requirements. Specifically, Component 4 will carry out diagnostic assessments of existing regulatory regimes (to 6.3 Execute hazard mapping for existing establish baseline capacities) as well as risk audits settlement areas to establish priorities for (to determine baseline exposure and vulnerability). retrofit and relocation. Under Component 4, standardized tools for evaluation and rating of regulatory performance, 6.4 Provide infrastructure in safer areas to direct efficiency, and effectiveness will be developed, urban expansion and land use. adapted, and applied. In turn, these evaluations 6.5 Make public comprehensive information on will help to establish priorities for new project hazard exposure and the rationale for land interventions to support building and land use use management. regulatory capacity building. 6.6 Institute alternative uses to occupy Component 4 will develop a global open-source hazard zones. platform to regroup information from diagnostics 121 122 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE FIGURE 4.2 — Potential stakeholders of the Building Regulation for Resilience Program Component 1: Component 2: Component 3: Component 4: National Level Legislation Building Code Development & Local Implementation Knowledge Sharing & Maintenance Measurement Primary level of National National and municipality Municipality International intervention Local government Key potential Line Ministries (Housing, reconstruction, Local and international engineering authorities, planning and Bilateral donors partners construction, infrastructure, etc.) associations building authorities Authorities in charge with DRR and local Local private sector and industry Local emergency and ISDR emergency & relief agencies representatives relief operations Local research bodies and/ Communities leadership, National legislative authorities or university and leading local UN-Habitat CBO & NGOs scientists. Civil society & private sector, incl. national Local private sector and home owners, builders, architects, civil Building trades, including masons UNESCO industry representatives engineering associations and developers) Technical institutions with Insurance companies groupings or experience in non-engineering association sector in developing countries and evaluations of regulatory capacity. This Figure 4.2 identifies potential stakeholders and information will form the baseline against which institutional partners for the design and delivery of future progress may be measured. program intervention across all components. Component 4 will consolidate knowledge and 4.4— Measuring progress innovations in regulatory practices and provide access to a range of functioning tools for evaluation In line with the Sendai Framework for Action agenda, and implementation purposes. the program will carry out baseline surveys and develop indicators that will serve as the basis A focal point to serve and coordinate both for targets—both qualitative and quantitative— /// local and international partners for reducing chronic and disaster risk in the /// The Building Regulation for Resilience Program built environment. will offer the structure to involve and galvanize Reducing risk depends upon the complex a wide range of partners with specific strengths interaction of several variables. Direct investment and experiences in building a regulatory process. in improved regulatory capacity in building Components 1 and 2 will primarily involve national departments at the municipal level, such as government entities and organizations. Component inspector training, must be accompanied by 3 will engage local authorities and subnational improvements in building professional training, government organizations as well as NGOs, CBOs, materials certification, construction finance, and civil society organizations, and professional groups. insurance. Partnerships will be established with international organizations across all four components with The measurement of regulatory outcomes related the aim of coordinating investment activities, to reducing disaster losses is complicated by the knowledge sharing, and funding contributions estimation of expected losses and the dynamics of consistent with the program objectives. future hazard exposure. Therefore, the program 04 Chapter will, in the near term, focus on measuring outputs is not simple. First, key aspects of construction, and outcomes directly related to the contribution such as rebar spacing, are not available for of regulatory implementation to code compliance reinspection. Second, the cost of reinspection and evidence of safer construction: can be very significant. To minimize such costs, the program will use rapid visual screening (RVS) • The development of an enabling policy and and statistical sampling. In the case of existing legislative framework for effective building buildings, RVS surveys will be based on three code regimes. This can be measured by an parameters, exposure, vulnerability, and occupancy. inventory and evaluation of legislation and The RVS is an evaluation procedure developed policies designed to enhance building codes and by the Federal Emergency Management Agency code compliance. (FEMA) in the late 1980s to identify, inventory, and • The establishment of institutional capacity screen buildings that are potentially seismically for the implementation of legislation, building hazardous.114 codes, and standards. The program will rely on outcome indicators reflecting the actual These indicators would serve as a starting point compliance with code provisions. Verification for measurement: the final selection of indicators of compliance may be confirmed by third-party would need to be well-tailored to the specific checks of plan reviews and site inspections. objectives and scope of country-level interventions. Experience has shown that indicators are most The program plans to use a set of core indicators to successful when developed by those who will measure the impacts of the program’s intervention use them to guide decision making. Given the (Figure 4.3). relation of risk reduction to many social, economic, It should be noted that the question of how to and development objectives, the program will evaluate code compliance in finished buildings ensure that measurement activities are developed BOX 4.1 — What is the Doing Business report? One of the farthest-reaching efforts to measure regulations was Since its inception, Doing Business has ignited a new focus on building initiated by the Doing Business report in 2005. An annual World Bank code implementation. The report puts pressure on governments Group publication with a powerful global media campaign, Doing to remove costly inefficiencies, thus shifting the attention to Business provides objective measures of business regulations in 189 downstream implementation issues of building codes, with a focus economies and selected cities at the national and subnational level. on building permits procedures and municipal inspections. In terms of The report creates a ranking for each country and spotlights “reforms” success and extent of usage, no other instrument has done as much and new “best practices.” Its release is frequently accompanied by a to encourage political leaders and regulators in developing countries spirited debate among its staunch supporters and opponents. to improve their construction standards, simplify procedures, and reduce compliance costs. In the past 10 years, the report has measured the ease of “dealing with construction permits” and counted a total of 170 related reforms The “dealing with construction permits” indicator will be expanded in across the globe. Most of these reforms were actually catalyzed Doing Business 2016 to include an index measuring good practices by Doing Business, which builds upon the visibility and competitive in construction regulation. This volume will also assess the quality pressure surrounding its publication. control and safety mechanisms in place for construction permitting systems, as well as the quality of building regulations. Data on these new criteria were collected for 170 countries in a trial phase in 2014. 123 124 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE in a participatory manner that encourages a include indicators that reflect the influence of broad ownership and maximizes commitments local building code implementation on actual to reforms. risk reduction in buildings. Starting in 2016, the report will present an additional index assigning Measuring interim accomplishments higher scores to jurisdictions with more practices such as third-party verifications, final inspections In order to set baselines and targets, define reform of buildings, and qualifications requirements priorities, and measure progress on interim for engineers. accomplishments, the program will make use of at • An evaluation and benchmarking methodology least two sets of data: will be developed to capture more detailed • Doing Business’s annual survey referencing building regulatory processes and effectiveness construction permit indicators would provide indicators. This will make it possible to assess measurement on general aspects of building more comprehensively the contribution of regulatory administrative efficiency (Box 4.1). building code implementation to actual disaster The same survey is now being extended to risk reduction and resilience. FIGURE 4.3 — Core indicators of progress and impact CORE INDICATORS OF PROGRESS & IMPACT Output Indicators Outcome Indicators • Number of laws and regulations drafted or revised to sup- • Percentage of new construction built in compliance with port effective implementation of building code systems building code requirements • Number of building departments with adequate funding • Number of people benefiting from reduced risks in the built and qualified staffing environment • Number of accredited professional training programs for • Number of cities and related populations served by building department inspectors and building professionals effective building regulatory functions of plan review and on-site inspection • Value of financial investment in municipal building control capacity • Rate of deaths and injuries as a result of fire, structural col- lapse, or other defects in new regulated buildings relative • Number of formally certified inspectors to the size of building stocks • Ratio of qualified building department staff to volume of • Survey-based estimates of percentage of nonconforming construction to be reviewed and inspected buildings relative to the size of building stocks • Percentage of districts with comprehensive hazard assess- • Percentage of schools sited and designed to withstand ment and mapping hazard loads • Number of existing buildings surveyed and evaluated for 1 • Percentage of health facilities sited and designed to with- disaster resilience capacity stand hazard loads • Percentage of districts with hazard zonation defining • Percentage of existing (pre -code) buildings assessed for permitted land uses potential disaster resilience • Number of programs of training sessions on code compli- • Percentage of existing vulnerable buildings retrofitted to ance for owners and builders, including the informal sector withstand hazard loads • Number of programs of public information on the purpose • Number of code infractions identified and adjudicated and implementation of building and land use regulation • Number of hazardous buildings condemned and removed • Number of professional certifications revoked • Number of code violations cited 05 Chapter Conclusion B uilding and land use regulation has proven to be the most effective tools for reducing disaster and chronic risk in the developed world. By implementing building regulation and supporting active compliance, the proposed Building Regulation for Resilience Program can For a range of reasons discussed in Chapter 1, serve to accelerate the application of current low- and middle-income countries have not scientific and engineering understanding to a safer successfully employed these tools. With the built environment. initiation of the Sendai Framework for Action, there is now an opportunity to reengage in the challenge of reducing disaster and chronic risk in low- and middle-income countries. This new effort is armed with extensive experience and innovative approaches. Focused attention on the building and land use regulatory capacity of disaster-prone countries and municipalities can ensure positive outcomes. For example, future construction and urban expansion will take place on safer sites. Structures will be built to protect population health and safety, and disaster risk will be reduced. Building regulation can work as a catalyst to leverage the total investment in building and infrastructure toward greater safety and security. 125 126 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Endnotes 1 UNISDR 2012. 32 Why do People Die in Earthquakes? The Costs, Benefits and Institutions of Disaster Risk reduction in 2 UNISDR 2015. Developing Countries, Kenny, 2009. 3 UNISDR 2015. 33 From Everyday Hazards to Disasters: The Accumulation 4 Munich Re, NatCat Service, 2013, http://www.munichre. of Risk in Urban Areas, Bull-Kamanga, 2003. com/en/reinsurance/business/non-life/georisks/ 34 Adelekan et al. 2015. natcatservice/default.aspx. 35 Disaster Risk Reduction: Cases from urban Africa, 5 Kenny 2009. Pelling & Wisner 2009. 6 World Bank 2014. 36 http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/ 7 Bilham and Ambraseys 2011. interactive/2013/sep/03/india-failing-2651-deaths- structural-collapse-architecture-housing. 8 UNISDR 2015. 37 Johnson, 2011. 9 Yanev 2010. 38 Thirkel, 1996. 10 World Bank 2013. 39 The CAPRA program is an initiative that aims to 11 IFRC and UNDP 2014. strengthen the institutional capacity for assessing, understanding and communicating disaster risk, 12 Munich Re, 2010 data. with the ultimate goal of integrating disaster risk 13 World Bank and United Nations 2010. information into development policies and programs. 14 Lewis and Purcell 2015. 40 UN-Habitat, Secure Land Rights for All, 2008. 15 da Silva 2013. 41 Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor Making the Law Work for Everyone, 16 Further referred to as “HFA 2 agenda”. Volume 2, Working Group Reports — http:// legalempowerement.undp.org/reports. 17 UN General Assembly 2014. 42 Payne. 18 Bilham 2009. 43 Towards a National Building Code, Eng. Noel daCosta, 19 IPCC 2014. no date. 20 Brecht, Deichmann, and Wang 2010. 44 Yahya et al, 2001. 21 GFDRR. 45 Disaster Risk Reduction in Turkey: Revisions for Land 22 UN-Habitat 2014. use Planning, Development and Building Code Enforcement since 1999, Gülkan, 2010. 23 Kellett and Caravani 2013. 46 Blondet, M. and G. Villa Garcia M. Adobe construction. 24 International Association of Fire and Rescue Services Available online at: http://www.world-housing.net/ (CTIF), 2015 Report. wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Adobe_Blondet.pdf. 25 Philippine Economic Update, World Bank, 2014. 47 Blondet, M. and G. Villa Garcia M. Adobe construction, op cit. 26 The value and Impact of Building Codes, Vaughan & Turner, 2013. 48 Shifting Agendas: Response to Resilience, Jo da Silva, no date. 27 IBHS. 49 Incremental and Affordable Housing Policy Toolkit, 28 Assessment of Energy Efficiency Achievable from World Bank Group, 2015. Improved Compliance with US Building Energy Codes 2013-2030, Sarah Stellberg, February 2013 quoted by 50 Ferguson & Smets Finance for Incremental Housing: Vaughan & Turner. Current Status & Prospects for Expansion, 2009. 29 Managing Disaster Risk for a Resilient Future, GFDRR, 51 Housing Policies, Quality of Housing & urban 2012. Development: Lessons for the Latin American Experience, Rojas, 2015. 30 Global Assessment Report (GAR) on Disaster Risk Reduction, 2013. 52 Jamaica Bureau of Standards, interview (2015). 53 Johnson, 2011. 31 Shifting Agendas The Role of Engineer in Disaster Risk Reduction, Jo da Silva, 2012 (LSE Cities public lecture 54 Municipal Financing and urban Development, UN- in partnership with OveArup Foundation). Habitat, 2008. Endnotes References 55 A clear correlation exists between a nation’s per capita 79 Doing Business Report, World Bank Group, 2015. income and the level of corruption, Ambraseys & 80 Doing Business records the procedures, time and Bilham, 2011. cost required for a small-to-medium-size business 56 “Corruption Kills”, Ambraseys & Bilham, 2011. to obtain all necessary approvals to build a simple commercial warehouse and connect it to water and 57 Transparency International Bribes Payer Index, 2011. sewerage systems. 58 Olken, 2004. 81 World Bank, 2013. 59 Transparency International Global Corruption Report, 82 Illustrating this point: the work of Becker (1968), 2005. Allingham and Sandmo (1972) and Srinivasan (1973) 60 Kenny, 2007. in the field of tax compliance. 61 Clientelismo Y Desarrolo Barrial en Bogotá: Analisis a 83 “The Economic Psychology of Tax Behaviour”, Kirchler, Partir Del Caso Del Barrio Cerro Norte, Aunta Peña, 2007. 2009. 84 Blanc, Macrae, Ottimofiore 2015. 62 World Bank Enterprise Survey. 85 Public Administration Behavior, Lind, Van den Bos, Van 63 http://beeps.prognoz.com/beeps/Home.ashx. den Velden, 2014. 64 EQI International. 86 Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the Effective Rule of Law, Crime and Justice, volume 30, Tyler, 2003. 65 Ambraseys, Bilham, 2011. 87 Managing and Maintaining Compliance”, Elffers, 66 Referred to as “D595” promulgated on April 10, 2000. Verboon, Huisman, 2006. 67 Disaster Risk Reduction in Turkey: revisions for Land 88 Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Enforcement Use Planning, Development and Building Code and Inspections, OECD, 2014; Regulator’s Code, Enforcement Since 1999, Gülkan, 2010. BRRDO, 2014. 68 Data is unfortunately often not available or not comparable for construction related safety issues — 89 It is Not Too Late: Preparing for Asia’s Next Big and the relatively low frequency of accidents makes Earthquake, Yanev, GFDRR, 2010. it difficult to build meaningful comparisons, hence 90 Building Resilience, WB, GFDRR, 2013. our reliance on fire safety statistics as a proxy. 91 Guidebook for Building Earthquake-Resistant 69 This observation is in now measure limited to the Construction of one to Two-Storey Buildings in Former Soviet Union nor should it be understood Confined Masonry, Revised June 2015. that we are singling out these countries — they were chosen because of data availability and because 92 Pierson Lester, 2014. they have meaningful regulations on the books 93 www.doingbusiness.org. which if implemented appropriately should ensure a better level of safety. 94 How Transparent is Business Regulation Around the World, Geginat 2013. 70 International Finance Corporation, 2015. 95 Best Practice Ingredients for Building Regulation, NSW/ 71 Doing Business, 2015. ACT Chapter Conference in Sydney, Kim Lovegrove, 72 Doing Business, 2015. 2013. 73 Ecole Nationale des Ingénieurs Abderhamane B.Touré 96 Reforming Building Permits, IFC, 2009. founded in 1963. 97 Ministry of Housing, Ontario, 2009. 74 Doing Business Report database, 2015. 98 International Finance Corporation, 2015. 75 Munich Re, 2013. 99 Doing Business Report: data aggregated for the 2006- 76 This definition extends the traditional definition of the 2014 period. term since the World Bank generally defines “risk” 100 This regime was implemented in April 2013. as a function of hazard, vulnerability and exposure. Consideration of “social consequences” provides an 101 Doing Business Report, World Bank Group, 2015. important element to better grasp and determine 102 Building Regulatory Enforcement Regimes, Jeroen van the relative notion of acceptable risk. der Heijden, 2009. 77 To allow consistent comparisons, Doing Business 103 To this effect, Victoria established a private-public records the cost required for a small medium-size “Building Practitioners Board”, an independent business to obtain all necessary approvals to build organization which oversees the quality and as simple commercial warehouse and connect it to standard of the State’s building industry professions. sewerage and water. The warehouse is assumed to have two stories, both above ground, with a total 104 The “curadores” were legally established in 1995 constructed area of 1,300 square meters). Each floor as certified individuals delegated with the public is three meters high. responsibilities to administer building permit reviews and to issue permits. Curadores set 78 The term “applicable laws” refers to laws, regulations, up shop and were in full operation by January and bylaws which would prohibit construction 1996. Initially, curadores were selected among unless complied with. For example, an applicable experienced architects and engineers with law could include provisions that prohibit high-rise construction experience. buildings in certain locations near runways and airports, or that regulate construction in floodplains 105 Initiated by the Field Act, shortly introduced after or agricultural areas. the earthquake with other laws, that banned the 127 128 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE construction of unreinforced masonry buildings, 110 Good Practices for Construction Regulation and and required that earthquake forces be taken into Enforcement Reform, World Bank, 2013. account in structural design. 111 Based on report from Doug Martin, Crown Manager 106 A Financial Framework for reducing Slums: Lessons appointed to the Christchurch City Council after the IANZ withdrew its accreditation to the city’s BCA, from Experience in Latin America, Ferguson, March 2015. Navarrete, 2003. 112 Housing Finance Policy in Emerging Markets, Loic 107 Property Rights for the Poor: Effects of Land Titling, Chiquier, Micahel Lea, 2009. Galiani & Schargrodsky, 2010. 113 Turkey Green Buildings Market Study, IFC, 2013. 108 Kagawa 2002. 114 FEMA 2015. 109 Secure Land Rights for All, UN-Habitat, GLTN, 2008. References Adelekan, I. O., C. Johnson, M. A. Z. Manda, D. Matyas, B. Mberu, Bin, S. 2012. Third Parties in the Implementation of Building and S. Parnell. 2015. “Disaster Risk and Its Reduction: Energy Codes in China. Washington, DC: American An Agenda for Urban Africa.” International Development Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy and Institute for Planning Review 37, No 1, 33—43. Market Transformation. Allan, P. 2002. “National Review of Home Builders Warranty Blanc, F., and G. Ottimofiore. 2015. “Stakeholders Consultation Insurance and Consumer Protection.” Ministerial Council in the Framework of Regulatory Impact Assessment.” In on Consumers Affairs, Canberra. Handbook of Regulatory Impact Assessment, edited by C. Andrews, R. N. L. 1998. “Environmental Regulation and Radaelli and C. Dunlop. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Business Self-Regulation.” Policy Science 31: 177—197. Blondet, M., J. Vargas, and N. Tarque. 2005. “Building Codes Armstrong, E. 2005. Integrity, Transparency and Accountability for Earthen Buildings in Seismic Areas: The Peruvian in Public Administration: Recent Trends, Regional and Experience.” Proceedings for the First International International Developments and Emerging Issues. New Conference Living in Earthen Cities, ITU-Istanbul, Turkey. York: United Nations. Blondet, M., M. G. Villa Garcia Medina, S. Brzev, and A. Rubiños. Arnold, M., A. de la Fuente, C. Benson, D. Clarke, X. Giné, and R. 2011. “Earthquake-Resistant Construction of Adobe Vargas Hill. 2013. Forthcoming. “Insuring Resilience: What Buildings: A Tutorial.” 2nd edition. EERI/IAEE World Does the Evidence Tell Us?” World Bank Synthesis Report. Housing Encyclopedia. Arshad, A., and A. Athar. 2013. Rural Housing Reconstruction Bondy, K. B. 2003. “Judging Building Codes.” Concrete Program Post-2005 Earthquake‚ÄîLearning from the International 25: 93—96. Pakistan Experience: A Manual for Post-Disaster Housing Program Managers. Washington, DC: World Bank Braithwaite, J. 2002. Restorative Justice and Responsive and GFDRR. Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ayres, I., and J. Braithwaite. 1992. Responsive Regulation: Braithwaite, V., and M. Reinhart. 2013. “Deterrence, Coping Transcending the Deregulation Debate. New York: Oxford Styles and Defiance.” FinanzArchiv/Public Finance University Press. Analysis 69, no. 4: 439—468. Baiche, B., N. Walliman, and R. Ogden. 2006. “Compliance with Brecht, H., U. Deichmann, and H. Gun Wang. 2010. “Predicting Building Regulations in England and Wales.” Structural future urban natural hazard exposure.” Survey 24: 279—299. Breyer, S. 1993. Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Baldwin, R., B. Hutter, and H. Rothstein. 2000. Risk Regulation, Risk Regulation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Management and Compliance. London: London School of Economics. Bull-Kamanga, L., K. Diagne, A. Lavell, E. Leon, F. Lerise, H. MacGregor, and A. Maskrey. 2003. “From Everyday Bamberger, K. A. 2006. “Regulation as Delegation: Private Hazards to Disasters: The Accumulation of Risk in Urban Firms, Decision Making and Accountability in the Areas.” Environment and Urbanization 15, no. 1: 193—203. Administrative State.” Duke Law Journal 56: 377—468. Burby, R. J. 2006. “Hurricane Katrina and the Paradoxes Bilham, R. 2009. “The Seismic Future of Cities.” Bulletin of of Government Disaster Policy: Bringing About Wise Earthquake Engineering 7: 839. Governmental Decisions for Hazardous Areas.” The Bilham, R., and N. Ambraseys. 2011. “Corruption Kills.” Nature Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social 469: 153. Sciences 604, No 1, 171-191. Endnotes References Burby, R. J. (no date). “Building Disaster Resilient Communities, Gülkan, P. 2010. “Disaster Risk Reduction in Turkey: Revisions Enforcement and Compliance Strategies.” Session No 20 for Land Use Planning, Development and Building Code (lecture). Enforcement since 1999.” Case study prepared for ISDR Global Assessment Report 2011. Chiquier, L., and M. Lea. 2009. Housing Finance Policy in Emerging Markets. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Hampton, P. 2005. “Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and enforcement.” HM Treasury, London. Comerio, M. 2004. “Public policy for reducing earthquake risks: a US perspective.” Building Research & Information 32: Hood, C., H. Rothstein, and R. Baldwin. 2001. The Government 403-413. of Risk. Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DaCosta, N. (date unknown). “Towards A National Building Code.” Jamaica Institute of Engineers. Horvat, M., and P. Fazio. 2005. “Comparative Review of Existing Certification Programs and Performance Assessment Da Silva, J. 2013. “Shifting Agendas: Response to Resilience. Tools for Residential Buildings.” Architectural Science The Role of the Engineer in Disaster Risk Reduction.” The Review 48: 69-80. Institution of Civil Engineers 9th Brunel International Lecture Series. London School of Economics, June 4. Huber, P.W. 1988. Liability: The Legal Revolution and Its Consequences. New York: Basic Books. Davis, D. 2007a. “Self-Certification Crackdown Sparks Turf War.” Architectural Record, 28 October. Hussey, P.S., G.F. Anderson, R. Osborn, C. Feek, V. McLaughlin, J. Millar, and A. Epstein. 2004. “How Does The Quality Davis, D. 2007b. “Should Architects Self Certify Building Plans.” Of Care Compare In Five Countries?” Health Affairs 23: Architectural Record, 7 January. 89-99. Doyle, C. 1997. “Self-Regulation and Statutory Regulation.” Hutter, B. 2005. “The Attractions of Riskbased Regulation: Business Strategy Review, 8: 35-42. accounting for the emergence of risk ideas in regulation.” Dubnick, M. J. 2003. “Accountability and Ethics: Reconsidering Discussion paper no. 33, London, ESRC Centre for the Relationships.” International Journal of Organization Analysis and Risk Regulation. Theory and Behavior 6: 405-441. IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2007. Strategic Elffers, H., P. Verboon, and W. Huisman. 2006. Managing and Communications for Business Environment Reforms. Maintaining Compliance. Eleven International Publishing. Washington, DC: IFC. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2015. Rapid IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Hazards: A Handbook. 3rd edition. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Ferguson B., and P. Smets. 2009. Finance for incremental Change, edited by O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. housing; current status & prospects for expansion. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, Habitat International. I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Fernandes, E. 2011. “Regularization of Informal Settlements in Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, Latin America, Policy Focus Report.” Lincoln Institute of and J. C. Minx. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Land Policy. University Press. Galiani, S., and E. Schargrodsky. 2010. “Property Rights for the IRFC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Poor: Effects of Land Titling.” Journal of Public Economics Societies) and UNDP (United Nations Development 94: 700-729. Program). 2014. Effective Law and Regulation for Disaster Risk Reduction: A Multi-Country Report. New York: IRFC Gülkan, P. 2001. “Revision of the Turkish Development Law and UNDP. No. 3194 Governing Urban Development and Land-Use Planning.” In Mitigation and Financing of Earthquake Johnson, C. 2011. “Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risks in Turkey, edited by P. R. Kleindorfer and M. R. Risk Reduction. Creating an enabling environment for Sertel. Kluwer Academic Publishers. reducing disaster risk: Recent experience of regulatory frameworks for land, planning and building in low and Gülkan, P. 2000. What Emerged from the Rubble. Washington, middle-income countries.” International Strategy for DC: ProVention; World Bank. Disaster Reduction. Gülkan, P. 2000. “Building Code Enforcement Prospects: Kagan, R. A. 1984. “On regulatory inspectorates and police.” Failure of Public Policy.” 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey, Earthquake In Enforcing regulation, edited by K. Hawkins and J.M. Reconnaissance Report. Supplement A to Earthquake Thomas. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Spectra 16: 351-367. Kagan, R. A. 1994. “Regulatory Enforcement.” In Handbook Gülkan, P. 2001. “Rebuilding the Sea of Marmara Region:¬† of Regulation and Administrative Law, edited by D. Recent Structural Revisions in Turkey to Mitigate H. Rosenbloom and R. D. Schwartz. New York: Marcel Disasters.” Wharton-World Bank Conference on Dekker, Inc. Challenges in Managing Catastrophic Risks: Lessons for the US and¬†Emerging Economies, January 2001, Kagawa, A., and J. Turkstra. 2002. “The Process of Urban Washington, DC. Land Tenure Formalisation in Peru.” In Land Rights and Innovation: Improving Tenure Security for the Urban Poor, Gülkan, P. 2002. “Setting the Stage for Urban Risk Mitigation: edited by G. Payne. London: ITDG Publishing. Seismic Risks and Compulsory Insurance Policy Issues in Turkey.” Second Annual IIASA-DPRI Meeting Kellett, J., and A. Caravani. 2013. Financing Disaster Risk on Integrated Disaster Risk Management: Megacity Reduction: A 20 Year Story of International Aid. Vulnerability and Resilience, July 29-31, 2002, Laxenburg, Washington, DC: Overseas Development Institute and Austria. Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery. 129 130 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Kenny, C. 2007. “Construction, Corruption, and Developing May, P. 2007. “Regulatory Regimes and Accountability.” Countries.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. Regulation & Governance 1: 8-26. Kenny, C. 2009. “Why do people die in earthquakes? The McLean, W. 2003. Inspector Discretion and Industry Compliance Costs, benefits and institutions of disaster risk reduction in the Street-Level Implementation of Building Codes. in developing countries.” World Bank Policy Research New Orleans: University of New Orleans. Working Paper. Meacham, B., R. Bowen, J. Traw, and A. Moore. 2005. Kirchler, E. and E. Hoelzl. 2006. “Modelling Taxpayers’ “Performance-based building regulation: current Behaviour as a Function of Interaction between Tax situation and future needs.” Building Research & Authorities and Taxpayers.” In Managing and Maintaining Information 33: 91-106. Compliance, edited by H. Elffers, H., P. Verboon, W. Meijer, F., and H. Visscher. 2006. “Deregulation and privatization Huisman. Den Haag: Boom Legal Publishers. of European building-control systems?” Environment and Kirchler, E. 2007. The Economic Psychology of Tax Behaviour. Planning B: Planning and Design 33: 491-501. New York: Cambridge University Press. Moullier, T. 2013. Good Practices for Construction Regulation Krimgold, F. 2011. “Disaster risk reduction and the evolution and Enforcement Reform. Guidelines for Reformers. of physical development regulation.” Environmental Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Hazards 10:1, 53-58. Moullier, T. 2015. “Building & Land Use Regulatory Krimgold, F. 1977. Seismic Design Decisions for the Implementation and Compliance at the Local Level. A Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Building Code. Priority for the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Reduction.” GFDRR/World Bank position paper. LaFaive, M. 2001. “Looking over Private Inspections.” Michigan Napier, M. 2002. “The Origin and Spread of Core Housing.” Privatization Report, 20-21. In Core Housing, Enablement and Urban Poverty: The Levy, M., and M. Salvadori. 1992. Why Buildings Fall Down: How Consolidation Paths of Households Living in Two South Structures Fail. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. African Settlements. Newcastle upon Tyne: Newcastle University. Lewis, D., and P. H. Purcell. 2015. “From Disaster Risk Reduction to Resilience: A New Urban Agenda for the 21st Century.” Narafu, T., Y. Ishiyama, K. Okazaki, S. Ando, H. Imai, K. Pribadi, Background paper prepared for the 2015 Global A. Dixit, N. Ahmad, Q. Ali, and A. Turer. 2010. “A Proposal Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, UNISDR. for a Comprehensive Approach to Safer Non-Engineered Houses.” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Liu F., A.S. Meyer, and J.F. Hogan. “Mainstreaming Building Engineering 9(2): 315-322. Energy Efficiency Codes in Developing Countries.” World Bank Working Paper No 204. Narafu, T., and M. Ishiwatari. 2013. “Building Performance.” World Bank Knowledge Note. Loesch, J., and D. Hammerman. 1998. “Private/public partnerships to ensure building code compliance.” Narafu, T., and K. Okazaki. 2007. “Housing Reconstruction Facilities 14: 28-38. Practices in Aceh, Indonesia.” Journal of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Engineering, 257-262. Lovegrove, K. 1991. The Primary Building Acts of Australia. A Comparative Study. Sydney: The Federation Press. Narafu, T., H. Imai, S. Matsuzaki, K. Sakoda, F. Matsumura, and Y. Ishiyama. 2008. “Basic Study for Bridge Lovegrove, K. 2015. “Key elements which form the basis of between Engineering and Construction Practice of effectively functioning building legislation that delivers Non-Engineered Houses.” Proceedings of 14th World positive outcomes for all stakeholders.” A keynote Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, address at the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors October 12-17, 2008. SA 2015 Chapter Conference. Narafu, T., and K. Okazaki. 2005. “A Strategic Approach to Lloyd-Jones, T. 2006. Mind the gap! Post disaster reconstruction Disseminate Appropriate (building) Technologies to and the transition from humanitarian relief. RICS. People.” Proceedings of SismoAdobe Conference, Lima, Macrory, R. 2006. “Regulatory Justice: Making Sanctions Peru. Effective.” London: Better Regulation Executive, Navarette, J., and B. Fergusson. 2003. “A Financial Framework Department for Business, Innovation and Skills of the for Reducing Slums: Lessons from Experience in Latin United Kingdom. America.” Environment and Urbanization 15, No 2: 201-216. Maguire, L. A., and E. A. Lind. 2003. “Public participation in Olken, B. 2007. “Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a Field environmental decisions: Stakeholders, authorities Experiment in Indonesia.” Journal of Political Economy 115, and procedural justice.” International Journal of Global No 2: 200-249. Environmental Issues 3, No. 2: 133-148. Papadopoulos, A. 2016. Resilience. The Ultimate Sustainability. May, P., and R. Burby. 1998. “Making Sense Out of Regulatory Resilience Action Fund Publisher. 2nd edition. Enforcement.” Law & Policy 20: 157-182. Parajuli, Y., J. Bothara, A. Dixit, J. Pradhan, and R. Sharpe. 2000. May, P., and R. S. Wood. 2003. “At the Regulatory Front “Nepal Building Code—Need, Development Philosophy Lines: Inspectors’ Enforcement Styles and Regulatory and Means of Implementation.” WCEE Conference, Compliance.” Journal of Public Administration Research Auckland, New Zealand. and Theory 13: 117-139. Payne, G. 2001. “The Impact of Regulation on the Livelihoods of May, P. 2003. “Performance-based Regulation and Regulatory the Poor.” Paper prepared for the ITDG research project Regimes.” Paper prepared for the Global Policy Summit ‘Regulatory Guidelines for Urban Upgrading.’ on the Role of Performance-Based Building Regulations in Addressing Societal Expectations, International Policy, Payne, G., and M. Majale. 2004. The Urban Housing Manual, and Local Needs, Washington DC, November 3-5, 2003, Making Regulatory Frameworks Work for the Poor. UK National Academy of Sciences. and USA: Taylor and Francis. Endnotes References Parker, C. 2000. “Reinventing Regulation Within the Risk Reduction.” Third United Nations World Conference Corporation: Compliance-Oriented Regulatory on Disaster Risk Reduction. Innovation.” Administration & Society 32, No 5: 529-565. UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Pelling M., and B. Wisner. 2009. Disaster Risk Reduction: Cases Reduction). 2012. “UNISDR Counts the Cost of 20 Years of from Urban Africa. UK and USA: Taylor and Francis. Inaction on Climate Change and Risk Reduction.” UNISDR, June 13, 2012. http://www.unisdr.org/archive/27162. Pheng, L.S. and D. Wee. 2001. “Improving maintenance and reducing building defects through ISO 9000.” Journal of UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Quality in Maintenance Engineering 7: 6-24. Reduction). 2015. Making Development Sustainable: The Future of Disaster Risk Management. Global Assessment Reis, Y. K. 2014. “Improving Building Permit Procedures in Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: UNISDR. Municipalities.” Planama 24(2): 55-63. UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Rojas, E. 2015. “Housing Policies, Quality of Housing & Urban Reduction). 2015. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Development: Lessons from the Latin American Reduction 2015—2030. Geneva: UNISDR. Experience, 1960-2010.” Paper prepared for presentation at the 2015 World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty, Vaughan, E., and J. Turner. 2013. “The Value and Impact of Washington DC. Building Codes.” Environmental and Energy Study Institute, September 30, 2013. http://www.eesi.org/ Schilderman, T., and L. Lowe. 2002. “The Impact of Regulations papers/view/the-value-and-impact-of-building-codes. on Urban Development and the Livelihoods of the Urban Poor.” London: ITDG. Van den Bos, K., L. van der Velden, and E. A. Lind. 2014. “On the Role of Perceived Procedural Justice in Citizens’ Reactions Schilderman, T., and E. Parker. 2014. Still Standing? Looking to Government Decisions and the Handling of Conflicts.” Back at Reconstruction and Disaster Risk Reduction in Utrecht Law Review 10, No 4: 1-26. Housing. Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publishing. Van der Heijden, J. 2008. Competitive Enforcement. Ruskulis, O. 2003. “Making Change Happen: Reforming Comparative analysis of Australian building regulatory Inappropriate and Restrictive Regulatory Frameworks.” enforcement regimes. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Paper for Workshop of the DFID KAR Project - Regulatory Guidelines for Urban Upgrading, 22-24 September, Van der Heijden, J. 2009. “Building Regulatory Enforcement Leamington, UK. Regimes. Comparative Analysis of Private Sector Involvement in the Enforcement of Public Building Tyler, T. R. 1988. “What Is Procedural Justice? Criteria Used by Regulations.” PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology. Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures.” Law and Society Review 22, No 1: 103-136. Van der Heijden, J. 2009. “International Comparative Analysis of Building Regulation: An Analytical Tool.” International Tyler, T. R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven: Journal of Law in the Built Environment 1(1): 9-25. Yale University. Van der Heijden, J., and J. De Jong. “Towards a Better Tyler, T. R., and E. A. Lind. 1992. “A Relational Model of Understanding of Building Regulation.” Environment and Authority in Groups.” In Advances in Experimental Social Planning B: Planning and Design 36(6): 1038-1052. Psychology Vol. 25, edited by M. Zanna. New York: Academic. Winter, S.C., and P.J. May. 2001. “Motivation for Compliance with Environmental Regulations” Journal of Policy Analysis Tyler, T. R. 2003. “Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the and Management 20: 675-698. Effective Rule of Law.” Crime and Justice 30: 283-357. World Bank. 2013. Building Resilience: Integrating Climate and Shepherd, A., T. Mitchell, K. Lewis, A. Lenhardt, L. Jones, L. Scott, Disaster Risk into Development. Washington, DC: World and R. Muir-Wood. 2013. The Geography of Poverty, Bank Group. Disasters and Climate Extremes in 2030. London: Overseas Development Institute. World Bank. 2014. Doing Business 2015: Going Beyond Efficiency. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Sparrow, M. K. 2000. The Regulatory Craft. Controlling Risks, Solving Problems, and Managing Compliance. World Bank. 2015. East Asia’s Changing Urban Landscape: Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Measuring a Decade of Spatial Growth. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Sparrow, M. K. 2008. The Character of Harms. Operational Challenges in Control. Cambridge: Cambridge University World Bank and United Nations. 2010. Natural Hazards, Press. Unnatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Spence, R. 2004. “Risk and regulation: can improved government action reduce the impacts of natural Yanev, P. 2010. “It is not too late: Preparing for Asia’s Next Big disasters?” Building Research & Information 32, No 5: Earthquake.” World Bank and GFDRR Policy Note. 391-402. Yahya, S., E. Agevi, L. Lowe, A. Mugova, O. Musandu- Starossek, U. 2006. “Progressive Collapse of Structures: Nyamayaro, and T. Schilderman. 2001. Double Standards, Nomenclature and Procedures.” Structural Engineering Single Purpose: Reforming Housing Regulations to International 16: 113-117. Reduce Poverty. London: ITDG Publishing. UNCRD (United Nations Centre for Regional Development). Yu, S., M. Evans, P. Kumar, L. Van Wie, and V. Bhatt. 2013. 2008. “Handbook: Building Code Implementation— “Using Third Party Inspectors in Building Energy Codes Learning from Experience of Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan Enforcement.” US Department of Energy. City, Nepal.” United Nations Centre for Regional. Development Disaster Risk Management Planning Hyogo Office. UN General Assembly. 2014. “Compilation Report on Consultations on the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster 131 132 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Other resources OECD. 2010. Risk and Regulatory Policy — Improving the Governance of Risk. Paris: OECD. ABCB (Australian Building Codes Board) (ABCB). 2002. “The OECD. 2012. “Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Performance Building Code of Australia; A Study of Quality and Performance.” Paris: OECD its Development.” OECD. 2014. Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections — Best Better Regulation Executive. 2008. “Improving Outcomes Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy. Paris: OECD. from Health and Safety. A Report to the Government Transparency International. 2005. Global Corruption by the Better Regulation Executive.” UK Department for Report: Corruption in Construction and Post-Conflict Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Reconstruction. London: Pluto Press. Booz Allen Hamilton. 2013. “Building codes for stronger and Transparency International. 2011. “Bribes Payer Index.” https:// safer America. Post Event Report.” Build Strong Coalition. www.transparency.org/research/bpi/. BRRAG (Building Regulatory Reform Advisory Group). 2000. UNCRD (United Nations Centre for Regional Development). “Knowledge, Accountability, Streamlining: Cornerstones 2009. “From Code to Practice. Challenges for Building for a New Building Regulatory System in Ontario.” Code Implementation And the Further Direction of CAPRA (Probabilistic Risk Assessment Program) and GFDRR Housing Earthquake Safety.” Records and outcomes (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery). of International Symposium 2008 on Earthquake Safe 2012. “Peru and the Mapping of Seismic Hazard.” CAPRA Housing, 28-29 November, Tokyo, Japan. Project Highlights, Issue 14. http://www.ecapra.org/sites/ UN-Habitat (United Nations Human Settlements Programme). default/files/documents/PH_Issue_14_CAPRA_PERU_ 2008. Municipal Financing and Urban Development. WEB5.pdf. Nairobi: UN-HABITAT. CHBA (Canadian Home Builders Association). 2001. “Reform of UN-Habitat and GLTN (Global Land Tool Network). 2008. Secure Building Regulations — What do members think?” Land Rights for All. Nairobi: UN-HABITAT. CTIF (International Association of Fire and Rescue Services). United Nations University. 2014. “World Risk Report.” Alliance 2015. 2015 Annual Report. Development Works, UN University, Institute for Department for Communities and Local Government. 2008. Environment and Human Security. “The Future of Building Control.” UK Communities and World Bank. 2006. “Good Practices for Business Inspections: Local Government Publications. Guidelines for Reformers.” Washington, DC: World EQE. 1999. “Izmit, Turkey Earthquake of August 17, 1999 (M7.4).” Bank Group. Hemson Consulting. 2008. “Examination of Recent Reforms to World Bank. 2011. How to Reform Business Inspections: Design, the Building Code Act and the Building Permit Process in Implementation, Challenges. Washington, DC: World the GTA.” Hemson Consulting Ltd. Bank Group. IBHS (Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety). 2011. World Bank. 2010. Regulatory Governance in Developing “Rating the States. An Assessment of Residential Building Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Code and Enforcement Systems for Life Safety and World Bank Enterprise Survey. http://www.enterprisesurveys. Property Protection in Hurricane-prone Regions.” Tampa: org/. Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. World Bank and IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2013. ICC (International Code Council). 2015. 2015 International Turkey Green Buildings Market Study. Washington, DC: Building Code. Code & Commentary. New York: Thomson World Bank Group. Delmar Learning. World Bank. 2012. Managing Disaster Risk for a Resilient Future. ICC. 2012. “International Accreditation Service (IAS).” Building Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Department Administration, 4th edition. World Bank. 2014. “Doing Business Report 2014: Understanding IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Regulations for Small and Medium-Size Enterprises.” Societies). 2013. “Better Laws, Safer Communities? Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Emerging Themes on How Legislation Can Support Disaster Risk Reduction.” World Bank. 2014. “Pakistan Earthquake 2005. The Case of Centralized Recovery Planning and Decentralized IRIN News. 2013. “Zimbabwe’s urban housing crisis.” IRIN Implementation.” Washington, DC: World Bank Group. News, March 8, 2013. http://www.irinnews.org/ World Bank. 2015. “Case Study: Institutional Arrangements news/2013/03/08/zimbabwes-urban-housing-crisis. and Construction Permitting Process in Tacloban City McKinsey Global Institute. 2014. A Blueprint for Addressing and Tagbilaran City in the Philippines — A Comparative the Global Affordable Housing Challenge. Analysis.” Washington, DC: World Bank Group. McKinsey&Company. MMC (Multi Hazard Mitigation Council). 2005. “Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities. Volume 1 - Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations.” OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) and APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation). 2005. “APEC-OECD Integrated Checklist on Regulatory Reform.” Paris: OECD. OECD. 2005. “OECD Guiding Principles for Regulatory Quality and Performance.” Paris: OECD. O ver the past two centuries, effective building and land use regulation have dramatically reduced incidences of urban conflagration and epidemic disease. In the developed world, such regulation has resulted in successful risk reduction and hazard response adaptation. However, disaster risk reduction strategies for low- and middle-income countries have largely ignored building and land use regulation. Furthermore, experience has demonstrated that the simple transfer of building codes from highly developed to developing countries is often counterproductive. A review and analysis of regulatory experience must be better applied to the creation of regulatory capacity in developing countries. Knowledge must be appropriately adapted to local conditions and incorporated into methods of sustainable regulatory implementation. This publication provides an analysis of available evidence to identify practical measures for increasing the effectiveness of building code implementation. Focusing on low- and middle-income countries, the authors argue for increased investment in functional building regulatory and governance systems for disaster risk reduction, while advocating a practical reform agenda for global collaboration. The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) is a global partnership that helps developing countries better understand and reduce their vulnerabilities to natural hazards and adapt to climate change. Working with over 400 local, national, regional, and international partners, GFDRR provides grant financing, technical assistance, training and knowledge sharing activities to mainstream disaster and climate risk management in policies and strategies. Managed by the World Bank, GFDRR is supported by 34 countries and 9 international organizations. WWW.GFDRR.ORG