BUILDING REGULATIONFOR RESILIENCEManaging Risks for Safer Cities

COVER PHOTO
Credit: Nicholas Kingston © 2010

BUILDING REGULATIONFOR RESILIENCEManaging 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, andother 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 suchboundaries.

Rights and Permissions

///

///

The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The
World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, thiswork 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: 202522-2422; 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 havebeen 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

12ACRONYMS /ABBREVIATIONS

13EXECUTIVE SUMMARY20

INTRODUCTION

31

WHY BUILDING REGULATION HAS NOT REDUCED DISASTER AND
CHRONIC RISK IN LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES

31

1.1— Introduction

31
32

Obstacles to effective building and land use regulation

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

Deadly consequences of unregulated development

36

1.3— Insufficient legislative foundation for effective building regulation at
the national level38

1.4—Inadequate building codes

38
38
40
40
41
42

Inappropriate transfer of codes from high-income countries

43

Limited access to code documents or training for code compliance

Participation in balancing acceptable risk and affordability
Failure of codes to address locally prevalent non-engineered construction
Absence of guidance for improved resilience of traditional forms of construction
Failure of building codes to address the prevalent pattern of incremental construction
Lack of quality control for building materials and equipment

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 efficientcode 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 process57

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 RISKREDUCTION IN LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES

76

3.1— Drivers of compliance and principles of regulatory practice76

Drivers of regulatory compliance78

Principles of regulatory practice79
79

3.2— Agenda to strengthen regulatory implementation in low- andmiddle-income countries
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

CONCLUSION126

ENDNOTES128

REFERENCES

05

06
LIST OF TABLES

45
95

Table 1.1— Overview of corruption types and related activities
Table 3.1— Good practice in setting fees for construction permits and inspection

LIST OF FIGURES

19
23
24
25
26
32

Figure I.1 — Building Regulation for Resilience Program
Figure I.2 — Annual rate of urban expansion by country (2000-10)
Figure I.3 — Disaster financing as a proportion of total international aid (1991-2010)
Figure I.4 — Fire events & regulatory response in New York City (1776-2000)
Figure I.5 — Seismic events & regulatory response in California (1906-to date)
Figure 1.1 — A Tale of Two Cities: The Paso Robles and Bam earthquakes ofDecember 2003

53
58
71
87
89

Figure 1.2 — A range of challenges for the reform of building permits in Turkey
Figure 2.1 — Components of a building code regulatory regime
Figure 2.2 — Regulatory ecology and core system elements
Figure 3.1 — Excerpt from EERI and CCR guidebook on confined masonry
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 anddeveloping accountability in an incremental way

111

Figure 3.4 — A range of non-financial incentives that can be used in support ofvoluntary standards

117
122
124

Figure 4.1 — Building Regulation for Resilience Program
Figure 4.2 — Potential stakeholders of the Building Regulation for Resilience Program
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
37

Box 1.1 — The accumulation of chronic risk: The case of Kenya
Box 1.2 — How innovative building control regulations in Turkey were impaired by the absence of sufficiently
supportive legal frameworks

39
44

Box 1.3 — Zimbabwe’s repeated attempts to improve housing conditions through building standards
Box 1.4 — Illustrating the restrained capacity of Lebanese municipalities to conduct building permit reviews
and inspections48

Box 1.5 — Why the success of effective building controls in Trinidad and Tobago hinges on a commitment
to transparency

49
60
62

Box 1.6 — Tajikistan: So many building inspections, for what result?
Box 2.1 — Establishing minimum qualifications for building professionals
Box 2.2 — Building cyclone-resistant housing in Madagascar by linking hazard zoning maps andbuilding code63

Box 2.3 — Obtaining market acceptance of innovations through a performance-based building regulatory
framework in South Africa

72
73
74

Box 2.4 — The Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct of the American Institute of Architects (AIA)
Box 2.5 — Accreditation of building regulatory agencies
Box 2.6 — The French mandatory liability insurance system: A main driver of compliance withbuilding standards

75
81
83
84
85
86

Box 2.7 — Building code effectiveness and insurance
Box 3.1 — Historical evolution of building codes in JapanBox 3.2 — How Jamaica adapted and localized an international model building codeBox 3.3 — Nepal Society for Earthquake Technology and the Nepal Building CodeBox 3.4 — The Peruvian Building Seismic Code for earthen buildings
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
92
93
94

Box 3.7 — How building regulatory decisions are appealed in Ontario, Canada
Box 3.8 — A standardized simplification of building permitting procedures: A four-stage approachBox 3.9 — The Istanbul Seismic Risk Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Project (ISMEP)
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 sector99
100

Box 3.12 — Case study: Post-earthquake reconstruction in Central Java, Indonesia
Box 3.13 — The Pakistan Rural Housing Reconstruction Program, post2005 earthquake103

Box 3.14 — Improving safe construction in Peru through informed building code
regulations and seismic hazard knowledge104

Box 3.15 — How the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) makes information on hazard
available to the public105

Box 3.16 — Limiting development in hazard zones: Allowable land use in floodplains in
Minnesota, United States

107
108
123

Box 3.17 — UN-Habitat’s proposed incremental approach to improving tenure security
Box 3.18 — Three major themes in the IAS accreditation process
Box 4.1 — What is the Doing Business report?

Acknowledgments
The report was written by Thomas Moullier inclose collaboration with Frederick Krimgold.
A team supervised by Thomas Moullier andcomprising the following individuals contributed
to relevant background work: Keiko Sakoda
Kaneda, Jennifer Duyne, Florentin Blanc,
Giuseppa Ottimofiore, Michael de Lint, Ommid
Saberi, Antoine Hanzen, and Naseem Baradaran
Fallahkhair. Important contributors also included
Eric Dickson, Mohsen Ashtiany, Oscar Anil
Ishizawa Escudero, Shahnaz Arshad, Emmy
Chepkirui, Markus Njehiah Kimani, John Keddy
Mwangi, Fernando Ramirez Cortes, Yelda Kirbay
Reis, Patricia Steele, Kathrine Kirstein, Kim
Lovegrove, and Christopher Chung.
We thank our colleagues, both internal andexternal, who provided helpful comments andreviews on this report and on its preliminary
outline published in January 2015. These
individuals include Francis Ghesquiere, Ellen
Hamilton, Niels Holm-Nielsen, Abhas K. Jha,
Alejandro Espinosa Wang, Jolanta Kryspin-Watson,
Sofia Bettencourt, Amod Dixit, Jeroen van der
Heijden, Margaret Arnold, Mike Davis, Polat
Gülkan, Geoffrey Payne, Syed Akhtar Mahmood,
Chuck Ramani, Raj Nathan, Alberto Herrera, Theo
Schilderman, Tony Gibbs, Yukiyasu Kamemura,Peter May, Pedro Oliveira, Paul Everall, Andrew
Minturn, Ismet Gungor, Abigail Baca, Zuzana
Stanton-Geddes, Iwan Gunawan, Rinsan Tobing,
Sri Probo Sudarmo, Artessa Saldivar-Sali, Svetlana

Sameh Naguib Wahba, Shaela Rahman, and Vittoria
Franchini.
We are grateful to our colleagues from UN-Habitat,
UNESCO, and the Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA) for their contributions and guidance.
Individuals from these organizations include
Tatsuo Narafu, Dan Lewis, Patricia Holly Purcell,
Robert Lewis-Lettington, Soichiro Yasukawa, andAlexandros Makarigakis. Substantive contributions
were received from the American Association forLaboratory Accreditation (A2LA), specifically from
Sylvana Ricciarini and Peter Unger in association
with Alexander Pineda and Luis Velasquez,
respectively head of Oficina Guatemalteca deAcreditacion (OGA) and director of Centro
Tecnologico del Cemento y Concreto (CETEC) in
Guatemala.
We are thankful for the administrative andlogistical support provided by Valerie Ligonde,
Loretta Matthews, Hoang Minh Do, Kim-Van Thi
Nguyen, and Regianne Henriette Bertolassi.
We thank the team at Bivee Inc, including Haley
Cline, Scott Schaffter, Jay Perry, and Nicholas
Kingston, for the design and layout of the reportand Anne Himmelfarb for proofreading andcopyediting services.
Special thanks are due to Christine Zhenwei Qiang
and her team from the Trade & CompetitivenessGlobal Practice of the World Bank Group, as wellas the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction andRecovery, 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 theby major natural disasters, such as floods andreduced 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 arein areas prone to such hazards, and their informally

Building Regulation for Resilience presents key

constructed houses tend to be highly vulnerable tolessons, experiences, and challenges to progressclimate and disaster risk.

in building regulatory capacity for disaster risk

Building and land use regulation has proven a
remarkably powerful tool for increasing people’ssafety and resilience and limiting the risk that they
face, including both the risk of large, rapid-onset
events such as earthquakes or cyclones, and the riskof more contained but still deadly events such as
fire or spontaneous building collapse.

reduction, and includes illuminating case studies
of successes and failures. It sets forth practicalmeasures, grouped into seven major priorities,
to create a new momentum for bridging theimplementation gap. Under the proposed agenda,
the international community has an opportunity
to leverage regulatory governance as a meansof proactively protecting populations, avoiding

For low- and middle-income countries, however,disasters, and encouraging sustainable and resilient

this tool has proved elusive. These countries lackurban development.

the mature regulatory regimes that are sustained bya regulatory “ecology” of supporting institutions.
Nor have they much benefited from knowledgetransfer or compliance assistance of functional
regulatory regimes. Simple transfer of documentsfrom mature regulatory systems—without specificadaptation to local cultural, economic, and politicalfactors affecting compliance—has led to a critical“implementation gap.”

Now is the right time to build on this momentum.
With the adoption of the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction, there is a clear international
consensus recognizing the importance of building
codes and standards. Going forward, improved
building regulatory capacity must be part of theeffort to reduce risk among the most vulnerable
and ensure shared prosperity.

Part of the challenge for low- and middleincome 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
A2LA

American Association for Laboratory
Accreditation

IBHS

Insurance Institute for Business
Home Safety

AIA

American Institute of Architects

ICC

International Code Council

BCA

Building Consent Authority

ICT

BCC

Building Code Commission

information and communication
technology

BCEGS

Building Code Effectiveness Grading
Schedule

IFC

International Finance Corporation

ISMEP

Istanbul Seismic Risk Mitigation andEmergency Preparedness Project

BEEPS

Business Environment and Enterprise
Performance Survey

ISO

Insurance Services Office

CAPRA

Probabilistic Risk Assessment
program

JICA

Japan International Cooperation
AgencyCBOcommunity-based organization

JNBC

Jamaican National Building CodeCENEPRED

National Center for Estimation,
Prevention and Reduction of Disaster
Risk

KEBS

Kenya Bureau of Standards

MCC

Mennonite Central CommitteeNBC

Nepal Building CodeNEC

National Ethics Council

CETEC

Centro Tecnológico del Cemento yConcreto

CTIF

International Association of Fire andRescue Services

NEHRP

National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program

DRR

disaster risk reduction

NGOnongovernmental organization

EERI

Earthquake Engineering ResearchInstitute

NSET

Nepal Society for Earthquake
Technology

FEMA

Federal Emergency Management
AgencyOECD

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

FID

Fund of Intervention for Development

OGA

Guatemalan Accreditation Body

FIMA

Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration

RFPE

regulatory flood protection elevation

RVS

rapid visual screeningGDPgross domestic product

UNESCOGEM

Global Earthquake Model

United Nations Educational, Scientificand Cultural Organization

GFDRR

Global Facility for Disaster Reduction
and Recovery

UNIDNDR

United Nations International Decadefor Disaster Reduction

GIS

geographic information system

UNISDR

HFA

Hyogo Framework for Action

United Nations International Strategy
for Disaster Risk Reduction

HFA2

Hyogo Framework for Action 2

USAID

U.S. Agency for International
Development

HMF

housing microfinance

USGS

U.S. Geological Survey

IANZ

International Accreditation New
Zealand

IASInternational Accreditation Service

IBC

International Building CodeAll figures are in US$ unless otherwise stated.

Executive

SUMMARY

Executive Summary
Mobilizing building code
regulations for risk reduction
In the past 20 years, natural disasters have affected

Nor has it been successful in addressing chronicrisk—indeed, governments rarely even record
events such as building collapse and fires, let alone
cover the loss.

4.4 billion people, claimed 1.3 million lives, andBuilding code implementation has a crucial rolecaused $2 trillion in economic losses.

to play in disaster risk reduction (DRR), one that1

Exceptional disaster events, along with chronic
events such as individual building collapse andfires, disproportionately impact the poor and themarginalized. In the last 30 years, over 80 percent2of the total life years lost in disasters came fromlow- and middle-income countries, typically setting

until recently has not received adequate attention.
This report focuses on how building regulation canbe enhanced to save lives and reduce destruction
from both disasters and chronic risks. Notably, it
supports a shift in focus from managing disasters to
reducing underlying risks.

back national economies by 5 to 120 percent of

Successful mechanisms of risk reduction andgross domestic product (GDP). There is evidence

hazard adaptation in developed countries havethat disasters’ impact on GDP is 20 times higher

relied in large part on effective and efficientin 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 andyears, high-income countries with more advanced

boosting shared prosperity.

building code systems experienced 47 percent of

As the scale, frequency, and severity of natural
hazards continue to rise, so will future expecteddisasters globally, yet accounted for only 7 percent
of disaster fatalities.4

losses in the built environment. The annual losses

A comparison between the 2003 earthquakes inresulting from disasters such as earthquakes,

Paso Robles, California, and Bam, Iran, further

tsunamis, cyclones, and flooding are expected toillustrates this pattern. The earthquakes had

increase from roughly $300 billion to $415 billion

similar magnitudes and struck within three daysby 2030.3

of each other. However, the death toll was two in

The international community has made significant

Paso Robles as opposed to more than 40,000—
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

Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction 20152030
In March 2015, the Third UN World Conference
on Disaster Risk Reduction adopted the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030,
making it the first major agreement of the post2015 development agenda. The priorities of the
Sendai Framework for Action have ample references
to building and land use regulatory development,
and they consider implementation to be a key
element of disaster risk reduction. This agenda
is evidence of a strong international consensus
to expand the full potential of effective building

To move from concept to action, the reportoutlines a proposed Building Regulation for
Resilience Program. This program offers a structure
to involve and galvanize a wide range of partners
with specific strengths and experiences to builda regulatory process applicable to all types ofbuildings. The strategic goal of the proposed
program is to help reduce human and economic
losses by avoiding the creation of new risks and by
reducing existing risks in the built environment.

Why building regulation has
not yet reduced disasterand chronic risk in low- andmiddle-income countries

regulation in reducing risks. This report advocates

The process of rural-urban migration in theimplementing 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

Report’s scope and target audiencehazardous sites and resulted in the construction

This report is a resource to assist policy makers,
governments, private sector and donor entities inleveraging good-practice building code regulation

guidance, urban development has extended toof unsafe, vulnerable settlements. This processof unregulated urbanization has vastly expanded
global disaster risk.

into effective strategies for reducing disaster risk

The failure of regulatory policy and implementationand chronic risk, thereby setting disaster-prone

in low- and middle-income countries has several

countries on track toward effective reform. It
provides practical recommendations and a review
of applicable innovations for a reform agenda.
Both of these components are based on a review
of factors that have prevented building codes frombeing an effective tool for disaster and chronic risk
reduction in developing countries.
The report recognizes the significant
interdependency between land use management
and building regulatory issues. However, its focus
is on building regulation and code implementation.

root causes. Poverty has been a major factor leading
to urban migration and a limiting factor in thedevelopment of municipal services and regulatory
capacity. This failure has been compounded byother factors as well:
Ineffective land use systems. Land use

///

///

systems have failed to limit settlements inhazardous areas and served to exclude a large
proportion of the urban population from legal land
and housing markets. These factors dramaticallyincrease urban disaster risks. Furthermore, in theabsence 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 administrationbuilding 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 buildingis 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 incountries 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 withstifling local innovation.

technical skills necessary to appropriately monitor
new construction.

Photo credit: International Organization for Migration

Insufficient legislative foundation. Incomplete

///

///

national legislation has resulted in the failure to

Insufficient recognition of prevalent building///

establish principles of regulatory implementation

practices. Incremental construction—the gradualor designate public and private responsibilities.

step-by-step process through which owner-builders

Building regulation often remains unconnected

append or improve building components aswith the larger ecosystem of civil, commercial, andfunding, time, or materials become available—iscriminal law.

a widespread informal practice. However, formal///

Unaffordable compliance costs for the poor.

///

The process of designing and adopting appropriate

systems of building codes almost never recognize///

this type of construction, widening the gap between
the formal and informal building sectors.

15

16

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

Post-disaster reconstruction projects havehighlighted the fact that owner-builders in lowincome settings are capable of integrating risk
reduction into their traditional building practices.
The coping strategies they have developed shouldbe accepted as a contribution to resilience. For
example, dhajji dewari, an economical and culturally
accepted form of construction in Northern
Pakistan, can be modified to safely withstandearthquake forces. In the aftermath of the 2005
earthquake, the region’s local building code did
not recognize this form of construction, whichhampered official funding for dhajji dewari’s use in
housing reconstruction.
Dysfunctional regimes of building controls.
Permitting and inspections services in developing
economies are usually expensive, overly complex,
and inefficient. Compliance with codes canincrease building costs, and these costs can act
as a deterrent to meeting code requirements. In
Mumbai, India, for example, the formal aggregate
administrative fee for going through a tedious 27step planning and construction permitting process
is equivalent to 46 percent of the total construction
cost. In Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) countries, however,the same process takes only 11 steps and accounts
for 1.7 percent of the total construction cost on
average.6//////

Corruption and regulatory capture.
Corruption in building code enforcement has
been associated with extensive building failure
and loss of life in disasters. Recent statisticalevidence shows that 83 percent of all deaths
from earthquakes in the past three decades haveoccurred in countries considered most corrupt by
Transparency International.7 Regulatory capturein building code systems can considerably distortoutcomes by reducing safety standards to benefit
the regulated industry. Conversely, regulatory
capture can also result in the increase of safety
standards to unsustainable or unaffordable levels,///

The essential
components of a building
regulatory framework
This report identifies three basic componentsthat form the core of any building code regulatory
regime: a legal and administrative framework at thenational level, a building code development andmaintenance process, and a set of implementation
mechanisms at the local level.
However, these core components of a building andland use regulatory framework do not function
in a vacuum. In the developed world, regulatory
capacity has evolved in parallel with a complex
mix, or “ecology,” of supporting institutions.
These institutions have provided legal andfinancial mechanisms as well as certified technicalcompetence required to achieve regulatorycompliance. Key elements of this regulatory
ecology include the general conditions forcommercial development, the rule of law, securityof tenure, and functioning building finance andinsurance mechanisms.
Important institutions specific to the building
sector include accredited building professional
education, professional societies and related codesof practice, accredited training institutions forthe construction labor force, licensing proceduresfor building professionals, and quality control///

thus excluding local owners and builders.

processes for building materials.

A vigorous building regulatory
reform agenda to support
the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction
New urban development between 2015 and 2030
will exceed all previous urban development
throughout history. Of the area expected to beurbanized by 2030, 60 percent remains to be built,
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 coordinatedi. to stop the expansion of disaster and chronic

effort toward disaster risk reduction shouldrisk in the siting and construction of new
settlements; andii. to reduce disaster risk in vulnerable existing
settlements.
New construction with appropriate design can bemade disaster-resistant for a small percentage of
construction cost, on the order of 5 to 10 percent.9
The retrofit of existing vulnerable structures may
require major expenditure, in the range of 10
to 50 percent of building value.10 Establishing///address the need for adequate funding, staffing,and execution necessary to implement building
and land use regulation at the local level. Thisrequires specific support for training building
officials as well as funding to ensure appropriatecompensation. It also demands parallel efforts
in the development of building and planningeducation, financial and insurance mechanisms
for the management of risk, and public
understanding of the importance of safe siting
and construction practice.

standards and implementation mechanisms forinspection of new construction provides a solid

3. Focusing on creating building standards

institutional and technical foundation from whichappropriate 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

The report’s proposed reform agenda charts
closely interrelated strategic actions aimed at
reinforcing the regulatory capacity of countries atvarious stages of development. The following are
the main development priorities suggested by thereport’s recommendations.

///

///

losses. Where regulations are unknown,
unenforceable, or excessive, most people tend
to disregard them, especially the poor. The
benefits of a safer built environment should beaccessible and affordable for the poor. An open
participatory process with representation fromall relevant stakeholder groups is necessary to

1. Orienting regulatory and governanceensure 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 frombe given to measures that improve security of

post-disaster reconstruction programs havetenure 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 tocode-compliant and safer structures that meetessential standards of safety (as in Central Java,
Indonesia, after the 2006 earthquake, or Pakistan
after the 2005 earthquake). This supportive andadvisory role, coupled with rigorous inspection,
should be institutionalized as general practiceunder normal pre-disaster conditions.

4. Promoting innovations for effective///

building controls. Experience over the past 20///

years suggests that administrative simplificationand similar measures can reduce regulatorycompliance costs. With appropriate safeguards
in place, jurisdictions with high levels of disasteror chronic risk should be able to leverage
private sector technical resources to expand
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
permitting procedures on local governments.
Modern compliance tools to facilitate thisprocess include improved information andcommunications systems for risk management,

The proposed program has four components:
Component 1 - National level legislation///and institutions. Activities under Component///

1 will establish or improve national legislativebuilding practitioners’ certification, private

frameworks responsible for mandating thethird-party accreditation to provide review andconstruction of safe buildings and enabling theinspection, 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 fundthat transparency and procedural justice result

national hazard mapping programs and to expandin greater effectiveness of regulation andthe capacity of central authorities.

compliance; both can be implemented throughsmall, incremental steps. These steps typically
include measures that reduce arbitrary discretion

Component 2 - Building code development///

and maintenance. Component 2 will support///

in planning and building permit approvals. Suchthe introduction of locally implementable building

measures also serve to expand the disclosure

codes, including the adaptation of nationalof information related to technical andmodel codes. It will help to establish the basic

administrative requirements.

institutional capacity to develop, adapt, andA programmatic approachto catalyze investment inregulatory capacity
Priority 3 of the post-2015 Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction calls for a coordinatedeffort around rehabilitation of building codes andstandards. It acknowledges the need for a localized
and calibrated approach with a focus on vulnerable
settlements, irrespective of the broader income
category of the country.
Successfully reducing risk in the most vulnerable
areas will considerably depend on how otherdevelopment initiatives succeed in helping thepoor access better and safer housing and essential
services. The proposed Building Regulation for
Resilience Program, outlined in the last chapterof this report, will create synergies with related
programs. These programs include upgrading of
informal settlements, affordable housing projects,
housing finance, land development and land use
policies, regularization initiatives, and post-disasterreconstruction programs.

update appropriate standards of construction
through participative and transparent processes
at the national level. The criteria for evaluating
and improving vulnerable existing buildings
will be a particular focus. Direct investment will
involve the funding of materials testing facilities
and equipment, training of staff, research into
safer local construction methods, and funding of
programs to accredit product-testing laboratories.
Finally, this component will support the broad
dissemination of regulatory documentation andthe delivery of educational and training programs,
which will be based on code-compliant practices,
for all elements of the building sector.
Component 3 - Local implementation.

///

///

Activities under Component 3 will focus on thepractical administration of the local building
department. This will include managing thecore functions of building technical assistance,
plan review, site inspection, permitting, andenforcement, with the goal of facilitating voluntarycode compliance. Advisory activities will givepriority 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
and Institutions

Building Code Developement
and Maintenance

Local Implementation

Knowledge Sharing
and Measurement

Country-level interventions

sector builders in order to expand access to thebenefits of the building safety and regulatory

A call for action

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 thisdepartment 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 communicationinternational community must act now to pursue

technology (ICT) applications to facilitate efficient

more effective approaches to land use management

communication with clients, and training ofand building regulation.

external building practitioners.
Component 4 - Knowledge sharing and///measurement. Component 4 will provide an///international focal point for exchanging experienceand innovation related to building regulatory
implementation. This component will develop andmaintain common tools for assessing regulatory
capacity, effectiveness, and efficiency; carry

Regulatory capacity development in countries andmunicipalities with high levels of risk can ensurethat future construction and urban expansion will
be located on safer sites and will be built to protect
population health and safety. Building regulation
can work as a catalyst to leverage the total
investment in building and infrastructure toward
greater safety and security. By implementing
building regulation and supporting activeout diagnostics, risk audits, and evaluation ofcompliance, the proposed Building Regulation forregulatory system capacity; and develop specialized

Resilience Program can accelerate the application

standardized tools for assessment and ratingof current scientific and engineering understanding

purposes. The evaluations carried out under thisto a safer built environment.

component will track progress at the country
and local levels. They will also serve as the basis
for documenting good practices and identifying
opportunities for assistive intervention. Overall,

Building and land use regulations have proventhe most effective tools for risk reduction in thedeveloped world. For a range of reasons, many lowand middle-income countries have not successfully

this component will serve as a center for global

employed these tools. With the initiation of theresources and documentation on the topics of

Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-

building and land use regulation for disaster and2030, there is now an opportunity to act, armed

chronic risk reduction.

with extensive experience and new approaches.

19Introduction

Poor-quality construction
as the main contributor to
expanding disaster andchronic riskof total global disaster-related fatalities.12 A

Disaster risk is primarily the product of hazard

fundamental threat to the World Bank Group’sreport funded by the Global Facility for Disaster
Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) shows thatdisasters’ impact on gross domestic product (GDP)is 20 times higher in developing countries thanin developed countries.13 These impacts pose agoals of eradicating poverty and boosting sharedexposure and vulnerable construction. In the 25

prosperity.

years since the initiation of the United Nations
International Decade for Disaster Reduction(UNIDNDR 1990-2000), the expansion of disasterrisk due to unsafe development has far outpaced

expansion of hazard and vulnerability factors
and hence to the expansion of disaster risk. With

efforts to contain or reduce it.

regard to the generally accepted phenomenon ofaccelerating climate change, it is clear that CO2

Over the past 20 years, disasters and natural

release is related to an increase in the frequency

hazards have affected 4.4 billion people, claimed
1.3 million lives, and caused $2 trillion in economic
losses.11 These disasters have disproportionately

and severity of hydro-meteorological hazards. As
populations and urban centers are increasingly
exposed to hazards, extreme geophysical andimpacted the poor and the marginalized.

20

Current development patterns contribute to thehydro-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

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCEIntroductionithrough unregulated urbanization may be thebuilding code implementation. As such, the report

greatest contributor to the rapid growth of disaster

outlines a proposed programmatic approachrisk. Currently, some 1 billion people live inconsistent 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
who earn less than $1 per day.14
Vulnerable populations do not only suffer theprospect of catastrophic events, they also sufferfrom the more insidious and distributed lossesof chronic risks, which kill thousands in fires
and spontaneous collapse of poorly designed or
defectively constructed buildings.
Building codes and land use regulation have a
crucial (and thus far insufficiently appreciated)role to play in investment programs for reducing
disaster and chronic risk. To be effective, however,building codes and standards must be part of alarger “culture of safety” that includes engineering
education and construction skills training as wellas legislation, support for implementation, andenforcement strategies.15

Objective
The objective of this report is threefold.
First, it will demonstrate how implementing and

A mandate to act now
On March 18, 2015, at the Third UN World
Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction,
representatives from 187 countries adopted the
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 20152030,16 making it the first major agreement of the
post-2015 development agenda. The Framework
includes four priorities for action:• Priority 1: Understanding risk
• Priority 2: Strengthening disaster risk governanceto manage disaster risk
• Priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction
for resilience• Priority 4: Enhancing disaster preparedness for
effective response and to “build back better” inrecovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.
Each of the four priorities for action referencesbuilding and land use regulation development andimplementation as a key element of disaster risk
reduction. Specifically, clause (h) under Priority
3 states that to meet the framework’s goals, it isnecessarycomplying 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 forthe development of new building codes

enhancing building regulatory capacity in low- andand standards and rehabilitation andmiddle-income countries is a particular focus.

reconstruction practices at the national

Second, it will explore the feasibility of usingbuilding and land use regulatory implementation topromote public health, safety, and risk reduction,with a focus on rapidly expanding urban areas.

or local levels, as appropriate, with theaim of making them more applicable in
the local context, particularly in informal
and marginal human settlements, andreinforce the capacity to implement,

Third, it will call for a renewed and internationallysurvey and enforce such codes, throughcoordinated effort aiming at promoting disasteran appropriate approach, with a view torisk 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
5. Conduct mapping of regulatory capacity at all levels

the private sector.
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 wascaptured in a statement from its organizers after
a session on the role of building regulation in
DRR. The statement encouraged the international
community to adopt a proactive agenda to develop
regulatory capacity. Furthermore, it offered six
practical actions to help move beyond the broader
objectives of the _Sendai Framework_ to moretangible measures to reduce risks in the built
environment (see Box I.1).
This positive outcome drew upon a multistakeholder
review of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA)’s
progress, which was prepared for the United
Nations General Assembly in May 2014. The review
emphasized the need to enhance good practices indisaster risk reduction, including standards setting
for building codes, land use, and preparedness.17
As the Sendai outcome and its foundations in the
HFA review suggest, there is a strong international
consensus for exploiting the full potential ofeffective building regulations in reducing risks.
This goal can be accomplished through renewed
investment in regulatory capacity and functioning
governance mechanisms. Insofar as it calls for an
innovative international approach to disaster risk
reduction, the Sendai Framework for Action agenda
provides a robust platform for action in the 15 years
to come.

Key factors contributing to
the expansion of disaster risk
Several factors have contributed to the growth ofdisaster losses and the continued growth of disasterand chronic risk.

Rapid urbanization without
effective regulation
Urbanization continues to concentrate people andthe urban systems they depend on. The world will
witness the construction of 1 billion new dwelling
units by 2050 and a doubling of urban building
stocks in the next 20 years.18 Some 60 percent of
the area expected to be urban by 2030 is in Asia,19and much of this area will likely be subject tonatural hazards.
The developing world has witnessed massive
rural-urban migration over the past century. This
dramatic increase in urban populations has largely
taken place without the benefit of building or land
use regulation. Consequently, the percentage of the
population in vulnerable buildings on hazardous
sites has expanded. For example, the number ofpeople likely to be exposed to tropical cyclones andearthquakes in large cities will more than double
by 2050—from 310 million to 680 million and from
370 million to 870 million, respectively.20

Introductioniout of poverty through access to jobs, education,

Climate change
Weather-related disasters affect developed anddeveloping countries, with highest impacts in
middle-income countries. The largest coastal cities
could experience combined disaster losses of $1
trillion by mid-century, as climate change resulting
from increased greenhouse gas emissions has
increased the intensity and frequency of severe

and technology. However, this growth correlateswith a significant increase in urban risks in thebuilt environment—risks that can seriously erode
the path out of poverty for millions. Over 103
million new slum dwellers have been added to theglobal population between 2000 and 2012,22 and amajority of them are settled in disaster-prone areas.

weather and related events (hurricanes, flooding,

Rapidly expanding urban areas are frequently

mudslides, and so on). By 2030, there will likely beestablished informally, without the benefits of

325 million poor people in Sub-Saharan Africa andrisk reduction and guidance from building or landSouth 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

Growth of informal settlements

a lack of basic urban services, including clean

Urbanization has been a significant engine ofaccess to transportation, and access to health andeconomic growth, extracting millions of people

educational facilities.

water, sanitation, electric power, employment,

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

7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%

an

Ja
p

a
Ch
in
a
Vi
et
na
m
M
on
go
Ph
lia
ili
pp
in
es
Si
ng
ap
or
e
M
al
ay
si
a
Th
ai
Ta
la
iw
nd
an
,C
Ko hin
a
re
a,
Re
p.
In
Ko
d
re
on
a,
es
De
ia
M
m
. P yan
m
eo
ar
pl
e’
s
Re
p.

di
bo

Ca

m

PD

R

0%
La
o

Average Annual Rate ofUrban Spatial Expansion (%)

8%

23

24

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

Failure to apply knowledge to practice
Our understanding of disaster and chronic risk has
benefited from recent developments in scienceand engineering. For example, in the past 20 years,
significant advances in the natural sciences havemade possible the characterization and mappingof hazard events. Hydrological, meteorological,

in California provided data from instrumented
buildings that supported significant improvements
in seismic building codes, and eventually led tothe creation of the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP), which conducts
earthquake research and its application tocode improvement.

and geophysical hazards can now be charted in

The primary way that new scientific andterms 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 landof instrumentation in modeling and mapping

use regulatory regimes. However, where building

for seismic micro-zonation using geographicaland land use regulatory systems have been largely

information system (GIS) technology. This isabsent or neglected, there has been little benefit

an important step toward improved seismic risk

from scientific and engineering advances inanalysis and mitigation.

improved building safety.

In addition, engineering research has considerably

Globally, there has been very limited investment

improved understandings of material and structuralin increasing building regulatory capacity for

performance of buildings and infrastructure; thisdisaster 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 disastermotion. Therefore, when strong earthquakes

resilience, primarily to post-disaster relief andoccur, 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 BILLIONDISASTER RISK REDUCTION

21.8%$23.3 BILLION

RECONSTRUCTION & REHABILITATION

65.5%$69.9 MILLION

EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Introductioni
FIGURE I.4 — Fire events & regulatory response in New York City (1776-2000)

Major Fire Events in New York City
Fire destroys¼ of the city

1776

Secondgreat fireThird
major fireTwin
tragedies

Triangle Shirtwaist
Factory fire1835 1845 1860

Blue AngelNight Club fire

1911

1815

1862

Bans wood frame

Createsfire escapes

1975

1871 1882 1913 1916 1970
Improves
fire escapes

Sprinklers

Exit andfire doors

OutsidestairsOtherfire incidents

1998

1990

Sprinklers for otherclasses of buildings

Building Code Response

in disaster loss reduction. Flood prevention
measures accounted for more than 90 percent
of all disaster risk reduction expenditures.23 This
unbalanced distribution of funding has constrained
the growth of institutions and tools needed

Incremental development ofregulatory capacity
The implementation and expansion of building
and land use regimes in developed countries has
evolved incrementally over time. This process

to promote safe development and resilience,

has created increasingly resilient systems able tospecifically through the application of scientificsustain chronic and exceptional risks.

and engineering knowledge.

Successful risk reduction
in developed countries
based on building and land
use regulation
In developed countries, successful mechanismsof risk reduction and hazard adaptation haverelied in large part on effective and efficientregulation. Regulations have dramatically reduced
the incidence of urban conflagration and epidemic

The city of New York was devastated by fires
three times in the late 18th and early 19th
centuries. Each major incident contributed to agreater understanding of fire hazards and urban
vulnerability. The regulatory institutions of thecity served as the repository of this knowledge and,through code development and implementation,
were able to improve building practice for fire
resistance in small and incremental steps. Throughan institutionalized regulatory process, theseaccumulated responses contributed to collective
knowledge and experience in the form of building
codes that reduced the incidence of fires overdisease over the past two centuries. The proximity

time. As shown in Figure I.4, the occurrence ofand density of urban development in Europe andfire events in the city has been closely linked to a

North America made this elaboration of regulatory

continuous, dynamic, and incremental process ofmeasures 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 Yorkearthquake 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 theover 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 Complianceseismology and earthquake engineering throughUnit in the Office of Statewide Health Planningresearch and testing. Subsequently, the 1927

and Development. Experience from frequent

Uniform Building Code provided the firstseismic events has contributed to continuouscomprehensive 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, thein a state of evolution today as engineers learn new

California legislature quickly passed the Field Act.
This legislation required special earthquake design

lessons from earthquakes around the world.

for public schools in addition to strict plan review

Regulatory process is accomplished at a veryand site inspection for all new schools by thesmall percentage of total construction costs. In

Office of the State Architect. No school building in

Organisation for Economic Co-operation andCalifornia has collapsed in an earthquake since theDevelopment (OECD) countries, the added cost of

implementation of the Field Act.

a functioning permitting and inspection system isabout 1.7 percent of total construction cost.

FIGURE I.5 — Seismic events & regulatory response in California

Major Seismic Eventsin California
Building Code Response

San Francisco
earthquake

Long Beachearthquake, M-6.2

San Fernando
earthquake, M-6.5,
Los Angeles

1906

1933

1971

1906

1927 1933

Beginning ofdevelopmentof seismology& earthquake
engineering

Uniform
Building
Code

Field Act

1983
Alquiste Hospital
Seismic Safety Act

Introductioni
The cost of establishing and maintaining afunctioning regulatory system is dwarfed by thepotential cost of disaster losses. Haiti sufferedlosses equal to 120 percent of the country’s GDP
after the devastating earthquake of 2010. Typhoon
Yolanda displaced 4 million people, destroyed
half a million houses, and pushed more than 2.3
million people back into poverty after hitting
the Philippines; consequently, the poverty rateincreased nearly 15 percent.25 Similarly startling

Key priorities
This report presents a set of interrelated, actionablepriorities for risk reduction. These priorities set
boundaries for the discussion and provide theframework within which recommendations arearticulated. They have informed the outline of the
proposed program developed in the last chapter.
Focusing on building regulatory regimes.

///

statistics apply to many more countries worldwide.

Tangible return on investment
Studies conducted in countries with moreestablished building regulatory regimes
consistently show that the benefits of up-to-datebuilding codes outweigh any increase in compliancecosts:• A study done by the U.S.-based InsuranceInstitute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS)///

Building and land use regulations are closelyintertwined and cannot readily be treated as
separate issues. However, this report places primaryemphasis on building regulatory regimes, withspecific focus on the core implementation activitiesof plan reviews, inspection, and complianceassurance. These activities have received little
attention in the context of DRR.
Recognizing the larger regulatory “ecology”///

found that losses from Hurricane Andrew, whichthat supports effective building code

hit the states of Florida and Louisiana in 1992,

implementation. Beyond the core activities ofcaused more than $20 billion in insured damage.

a building code regime, there are contributingThis loss would have been reduced by 50 percent

organizations, regulatory mechanisms, andfor residential properties, and by 40 percent

institutions that are essential to achieving

for commercial properties, if the structures hadcompliant, safe construction. This reportbeen built in accordance with Florida’s 2004

acknowledges the important role of thesestatewide building code.26

institutions, which may include educational and• Another IBHS study following Hurricane
Charley, which hit Florida in 2004, found that
conformance to current building codes reduced
the severity of losses by 42 percent and loss
frequency by 60 percent.27///

training institutions for the building professions;accrediting bodies for professional education
and building control; certification processes forcontractors and developers; mortgage lending
institutions qualified for building finance; property

Effective building regulatory systems bring about

insurance and professional liability insurance forother societal benefits beyond chronic and disasterbuilding professionals; and free and functioning

risk reduction. They can offer high returns forreal estate and land markets.

other policy objectives. Energy efficiency andCO2 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 spentincome countries. This report’s focus on theon 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 vulnerableof the total number of disasters while incurring

settlements. A primary objective of this report

48 percent of fatalities. Where regulations areis to limit the expansion of disaster and chronic

unknown, unenforceable, or excessive, most peoplerisk in future urban development. This is criticaltend 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 andClearly, initial location of safe sites is inherently

affordable for the disadvantaged. These efforts

more economical than relocation of existingshould accommodate incremental regulations

settlements. Likewise, achieving disaster resistancecompatible with incremental construction,in new construction is considerably less costly thanadequate incentives, and compliance support.

retrofitting existing vulnerable construction.

29

///

Introductioni
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 andand 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
will be a long-term priority. The developmentof regulatory capacity for new construction will
provide a foundation for extending regulatory
practice to the inspection and improvement ofexisting buildings.

Leveraging private sector to expand///

technical resources for code
implementation. Experience over the past///

20 years points to the potential of leveraging
private sector technical resources to expand
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 theModern compliance assistance tools include

view that a building code regulatory regime will

improved information systems on risks, building

address disaster risks effectively by extending thepractitioners’ 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. Thisand unhealthy living conditions. Investment inreport highlights promising experience in this

///

///

building regulatory capacity has the double benefitof reducing loss to both chronic and disasterrisks. Chronic risks and smaller disasters (such asindividual building collapses) are rarely recorded,
and rarely covered by government, insurance,or international assistance. The cost of impacts
associated with small disasters tend to be absorbed

area that contributes to increasing the capacity of
regulatory systems and reducing risks. Far froma deregulation agenda, this approach promotes
collaboration with private sector expertise thatcan strengthen the ability of building regulatory
authorities to protect public health and safety andenhance resilience.

directly by low-income rural and urban households.
They are estimated to be 50 percent higher30 thanthose 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 technicalassistance 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 ofvalues upon which an effective regulatory systemshould be established, is crucial. In concreteterms, 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 lowand middle-income countries. Specific weaknesses
are identified, described, and illustrated in briefcase examples.
Chapter 2 outlines the basic components of

///

///

established building regulatory regimes andillustrates essential regulatory functions.
Chapter 3 presents recommendations for

///

///

building regulatory development and reform
based on problems identified in Chapter 1 andsuccessful 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 withchallenges examined in Chapter 1 and withrecommendations proposed in Chapter 3.

01
ChapterWhy Building Regulation
Has Not Reduced Disasterand Chronic Risk in Low- andMiddle-Income Countries

1.1— Introduction
Obstacles to effective building and land
use regulationof hazard exposure and unsafe construction, has
led to dramatic expansion of vulnerable informal
settlements. The failure of building regulation
has been compounded by poorly formulated andpoorly communicated building codes. Corruption

In recent decades, the acceleration of rural-urbanof 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 orof 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 unregulatedof high-density urban development that require

urbanization has led to a vast expansion of global

more sophisticated institutions to manage thechronic and disaster risk.

balance between individual interests and the health,

The failure of regulatory policy and implementation

safety, and general welfare of the community.

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 andmajor 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- andcan dramatically reduce life loss in earthquakes.

middle-income countries.

FIGURE 1.1 — A Taleof Two Cities: The
Paso Robles and
Bam earthquakes ofDecember 2003
Source: Noel DaCosta, August 2010

In 2003, the Paso Robles, California, and Bam, Iran,

The purpose of this chapter is to describe theearthquakes had similar magnitudes and struck

major systemic problems and failures in regulatory

within three days of each other. However, thegovernance typically experienced in the extension

death toll was two in Paso Robles as opposed toof regulatory capacity in low- and middle-

more than 40,000 in Bam—nearly half the city’s

income countries.

population.32

Deadly consequences of
unregulated development

Failure to address both chronic anddisaster 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
Population: 30,000
December 26, 2003

Bam, IranPopulation: 90,000
December 23, 2003

6.6 Richter

6.5 Richter2 died40,000 died46 buildings damaged

50 percent of city destroyed

Code-compliant buildings

Buildings not code-compliant

Designed & built by qualified professionals

Informal buildings

01
Chapter

impact of smaller chronic risks. Increasing
evidence suggests that the cumulative impacts ofeveryday hazards resulting in small, isolated losses
are actually greater than those of large disasters
resulting from extreme events.33 The impacts ofthe former in low- and middle-income countries
are widely misjudged, as they regularly fail to meetthe criteria to qualify as “disasters” in international
databases. As a result, a significant share ofdamage to housing, infrastructure, and low-income
households affected by small disasters has beenpoorly reported and overlooked.34
Research on African urban centers points outthat a large share of the urban flooding, disease,
epidemics, large shack fires, and spontaneous
building collapses that occur in these locations
does not get recorded as a “disaster” in national
and international databases.35 Each year, however,thousands are killed by fires in, or the spontaneous
collapse of, poorly designed or constructedbuildings or structures. In India, for example, 2012
saw more than 2,600 deaths and 850 injuries as aresult of the spontaneous collapse of 2,737 building
structures.36
In April 2013, an eight-story commercial building
collapsed in Bangladesh, killing over 1,200
people. This is another tragic reminder of theneed to improve the safety of people from chronicrisks. The benefits of building safety regulation
should expand to all vulnerable segments ofthe population.
A particularly strong pattern of cumulative fires
and spontaneous building collapses in Kenya overthe past 20 years further illustrates how systemsof building code regulation can fail in dealing
with chronic risks. Over time, the aggregated lossof human lives and infrastructure in some of thelargest cities in Kenya can be unequivocally defined
as a disaster of significant proportions.
Failure to develop and implement effective building
regulation is doubly detrimental to low- andmiddle-income countries. Not only do they suffer

the prospect of catastrophic loss due to majordisasters, they are also impacted by the continuing,
distributed losses of chronic threats to health andsafety such as fire, building collapse, epidemic, andunhealthy living conditions.
This chapter describes the major factors limiting
the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory
frameworks in low- and middle-income countries.
These factors are related to• Land use and land governance systems;• Legislative foundations for effective buildingcode regulatory regimes at the national level;• Building code design and building standardsof construction;• Building code administration and institutional
capacity; and• Concerns with the efficiency of building code
implementation procedures.

FIGURE 1.1 — The accumulation of chronic risk: Thecase of Kenya
MAY 1996: Collapse of a supermarket

JANUARY 2010: Two-story building

during heavy downpour

collapse in Kiambu

MARCH 1998: Fire in dormitory

JUNE 2011: Collapse on Langata

building in the Coast ProvinceSouthern Bypass Building in Nairobi

MARCH 2001: Fire in similar incident

DECEMBER 2014: Five-story buildingin Machakos District

collapse in Makongeni

MARCH 2004: Destruction of

JANUARY 2015: Six-story residential

Planning Department by firebuilding collapse in Nairobi

JANUARY 2006: Collapseof two-story building underconstruction in Nairobi
JULY 2006: Major fire inindustrial building in Nairobi
APRIL 2008: Building collapse
in Nairobi
OCTOBER 2009: Three-story
building collapse in outskirtsof Nairobi

33

34
Unavailability of affordable, safe, andaccessible 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. Landis now under pressure everywhere as a result of
increased demand and speculation. There are
two major consequences related to excessive andspeculative land prices.
First, for low-income people, the very high price ofbuying or renting a piece of land absorbs the bulkof financial resources available for housing. This inturn limits their capacity to invest in safer building
materials, construction, and skilled laborers, even

1.2— Failures of urban
land management
The provision of safe land is the most vital stepthat local governments can take toward controlling
disaster and chronic risk in urbanizing areas. It
requires regulatory mechanisms enabling the urban
poor to access land that is not in high-risk areas aswell as regulations that allow for tenure security,
both for business and housing, in an affordable
manner.37
In dysfunctional regulatory systems, however, land
management policies have typically failed to ensure
land access, to link advances in hazard mappingwith effective building code implementation, and tosecure land rights in order to encourage investment
and acceptable standards for the environment
and for safe construction. As a result, land use
regulation has contributed to a shortage of safe

where these would be available at a reasonable
price.
Second, a significant portion of the population
cannot afford formal land tenure and thus areforced to choose informal land markets. In thePhilippines, for example, high land prices are
considered one of the main reasons driving
about 40 percent of people to live in informal
settlements. A detailed investigation foundthat the average cost of a house in an informal
settlement costs roughly 10 percent of the price ofa comparable unit in the formal sector.38
As a consequence of this significant pricedifference between formal and informal housing,both low- and middle-income households have few
options other than informal housing sectors, where
vulnerability to chronic risks and natural hazards is
considerably higher.

and often served to exclude a large proportion

Missing linkage of hazard mapping toeffective risk reductionof the urban population from legal land andOver 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 ofand urban populations.

expected events. Notably, the Probabilistic Risk

land, failed to limit settlement in hazardous areas,

01
Chapter

Assessment Program (CAPRA)39 in Central America
has developed scientifically-based probabilistic risk
assessments for seismic and wind risks. Improved
earthquake risk mapping has similarly been thefocus of the GEM (Global Earthquake Model)
program.

Consequences of insecure land tenure
Security of tenure is of pivotal importance tomotivate investment in sustainable and safe
infrastructure and housing. While there aredifferent forms of tenure, two core components
include reasonable duration of rights and effective

These efforts are essential to risk reduction, but inlegal protection against eviction or arbitrary

themselves do not achieve that objective. Hazard

curtailment of land rights.

mapping can only be translated into risk reduction
through the effective implementation of building
and land use regulation. This is why such efforts
repeatedly fail to achieve their desired goals.
The zones of the hazard map must be referenced
to corresponding building requirements, andthose requirements must become the basis fordesign, construction, inspection, and compliance.
Without a functioning building regulatory regime,
hazard mapping has no direct link to disaster risk
reduction.
Many countries that have benefited from recent
hazard mapping still lack key components ofeffective regulatory implementation and havetherefore not benefitted from any significant
reduction of risk. Such is the case for Jamaica,
which has recently completed its first seismic,
wind speed, rainfall, floodplain, and land slippage
hazard maps. But implementation of the buildingcode is still impeded by delays in promulgatingnecessary legislation and more effective
enforcement systems.
Haiti is also a case in point. After it was struck by
an earthquake in 2010, a seismic zonation study

In 2005, an estimated 934 million people lived
without security of tenure in informal settlements.
This number is projected to increase to 2 billion
by 2030.40 More than 90 percent of the rural
population in Sub-Saharan Africa accesses land via
legally insecure customary and informal tenuresystems, as do 40 million Indonesians and 40
million South Americans.41 Without secure tenure,people fear eviction and demolition of their homes.
An estimated 5 million people worldwide sufferfrom forced evictions each year. Those with no or
weak security of tenure are unlikely to invest in
improving their homes or neighborhoods. They
are even less likely to invest in more resilient
construction or retrofit. The lack of tenure security
is not only related to a deliberate illegal occupationof land, but is often caused by unpredictable, costly,
and time-consuming procedures associated withland registration. In Tanzania, for example, there
are an estimated 28 steps which must be completed
before a plot can be legally developed. In Lesotho,
it can routinely take 18 months to complete thedocumentation for a lease before development caneven start.42 Similar cases can be cited in manyother countries.

was carried out for Port-au-Prince. However,As a result of widespread failure to provide tenurein 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 andimprovement or safety. In sum, they are deprived ofa hazard atlas, but not a uniformly functioning

the opportunity to accumulate wealth in the formbuilding regulatory regime across the country.

of improved housing and security.

35

36

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

1.3— Insufficient legislative
foundation for effective
building regulation at thenational level

Incomplete national legislation fails to establish
principles of regulatory implementation and does
not designate public and private responsibilities.
Moreover, it often fails to connect building
regulation with the larger ecosystem of civil,
commercial, insurance, and criminal law.

While the local level is key for implementing
and enforcing building regulation, this local
authority must be solidly based on national
legislation that defines the public role in protecting
public health, safety, and welfare in the built
environment. National legislation must outline
roles and responsibilities of subordinate agenciesof government and devolve regulatory authority toappropriate levels of government. Consistent andcomplementary national legislation is necessary
to establish the legal framework in which building
regulation can be implemented. This includes
legislation governing the certification of building
professionals and regulation of the property
insurance and mortgage banking industries.

For example, the Steering Committee of the
Jamaican National Building Code began developing
a new building code for Jamaica in 2002. The
work of the committee initially focused onstrictly technical aspects of building standards
development and adaptation. However, it soon
became clear to the committee chairman, engineer
Noel DaCosta, that a parallel legislative effort was
equally necessary to establish a complete system ofcompliance and responsibility. In the words of Mr.
DaCosta:“Producing code documents cannot byitself guarantee their usage or effective
implementation. Consideration had to begiven to the preparation of legislation,

BOX 1.2 — How innovative building control regulations in Turkey were impaired by the absence ofsufficiently 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 notand 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 byinternational standards. It was one of the most spectacular and• Conflicts existed between the 2000 decree and the provisions infocused regulatory responses in building code regimes following

Turkish legislation regarding the payment of liability exceedinga disaster of this scale. The decree showed an exceptional level of

10 years.

attention to delivery and building code implementation mechanisms
for private construction (public institutional buildings were excluded
from the scope of the legislation).

• No legislation existed supporting the Provincial Supervision
Commission, an oversight mechanism created by Decree 595 tomonitor the firms supervising the new building construction.

However, concomitant changes that should have happened in several
provisions of national civil, commercial, and insurance laws were notintroduced. This lack of action served to undermine the reform andbring it rapidly to an end. The decree was eventually rescinded in May
2001 by Turkey’s Constitutional Court. National legislation failed tobring essential provisions to support the reform initiated in 2000. Thiswas reflected in the following issues:• No clarity was provided on how the mandatory earthquake
insurance legislated by the Turkish Catastrophic Insurance Pool
(TCIP) would be consistent with the new liability mechanism.
• Finally, there were serious loopholes and a lack of clarity on
qualification requirements for building professionals and the way
new licenses should be granted—a factor compounded, at the time,• No oversight of the supervising construction firms was introducedby the new legislation.

by obstruction from professional societies.
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

a Policy Framework Document, a new
National Building Act for Jamaica anddetailed regulations under the Act.”43

promulgating Decree 595 in 2000. The decree
introduced profound innovations in building
controls, such as an increase in qualification
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 theverifying design calculations and code complianceInternational Building Code developed by theof the actual construction. The decree also required

International Code Council) gradually transformed
into a more comprehensive effort. This reformed

building designers to carry mandatory 10-year
professional liability insurance for each project.

agenda sought to ensure that the new code could be

Unfortunately, this impressive reform effort camepractically enforced through appropriate national

to an abrupt end in 2001. The progress towardsupporting legislation and educational programs.

disaster risk reduction was opposed by elements

The understanding of the legal support
mechanisms for successful building codeof the building and real estate industries, who saw
that the new requirements could disadvantage
current professionals and add marginal cost tocompliance, 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 otherthe success of regulatory reforms.

important national legislation. Such action is

37

38

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

crucial; coordination serves to remove uncertainty
and establish clear lines of accountability inenforcement, thus providing detailed qualifications
requirements for building professionals, clarifying
the commercial status of the newly designatedsupervision firms, and providing resources to newly
created regional construction oversight bodies(Box 1.2).

In Jamaica, it was estimated that only the

Another form of bottleneck at the national level is
not necessarily the resistance of national legislative
authorities to develop underpinning legislation.
Rather, it derives from delays in organizing therequired consultations, endorsing legal drafts,
implementing regulations by appropriate line
ministries, and completing the legislative process.

not feasible for low-income housing. As a result,

Early in Jamaica’s new building code development
process (approximately 2006), the queue for work
coming out of the Office of the Chief ParliamentaryCounsel was 10 years long—suggesting thatwithout special provisions, the new Building Act
would not see the light of day until 2016. At thetime of writing this report, the new Building Act
has not yet been passed by Parliament.

1.4—Inadequate building
codes
Inappropriate transfer of codes fromhigh-income countries
To a large extent, the normative environment for
construction, land use, and planning standards indeveloping countries has been strongly influenced
by frameworks introduced during periods ofwealthiest 15 percent of the population could afford
housing that met the current formal planningand building standards. In Trinidad and Tobago,
it is estimated that only the top 20 percent of
the population can afford the median price of$21,500 for a housing unit that meets current
formal building standards. Code compliance is
low-income housing fails to benefit from healthand safety regulations. This trend is now widelyreflected globally.44
In sum, excessively rigorous and unattainable
standards of construction have been a major
obstacle for the expansion of regulatory compliancein the past four decades. Only relatively wealthyurban residents have been able to afford buildingsthat meet formal sector building regulations, thus
creating cities with entrenched two-tier systems,
widening social inequalities, and limiting progresson risk reduction.
Building codes are expressions of both social andtechnical principles. In order to achieve feasible
compliance, they must reflect the social reality andthe material possibilities of the society in which
they are to be implemented.

Participation in balancing acceptablerisk and affordability
The code development process in most lowand middle-income countries, where it exists,
is typically a bureaucratic process dominatedby narrow technical concerns. If the code is tocolonial rule. Such codes often set the bar too highbe relevant and feasible for implementationand thereby increase the dependency of developing

for all elements of the built environment, thecountries on imported industrialized building

development process must be open to broadmaterials and design practices. Furthermore, thesecodes frequently create high costs of compliancewith a result of driving construction to theinformal sector.

participation, with representation from all
sectors of the building industry as well as building
owners, occupants, civil society, and scientificand engineering experts. Feasible building codes
represent a socially acceptable balance between

01
Chapterrisk and affordability. This balance should bespecific regulatory measures, or they may lack thedetermined through an open and inclusive processcapability to conduct these consultations.

that can be accepted as fair and legitimate.
Narrowly framed technocratic regulation can haveadverse consequences for low-income groups,
setting unaffordable standards for building
plot size or construction technique. Unrealistic
standards lead to noncompliance and defeat ofregulatory purpose.
Negotiation of code provisions should be based on

A participatory approach may simply beoverlooked, as illustrated by the Zimbabwe example(Box 1.3). It may also be established without
necessarily attaining an acceptable level of societal
consensus by appropriately balancing acceptablerisks and affordability.
For example, in Turkey, the current legislative
framework has several provisions regarding

a consensus process that represents the relevant

multistakeholder participation in building,stakeholders concerned with both the costs andplanning, 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 planningto pay.

issues. Following the 1999 earthquake in Kocaeli,

However, governments at the national andlocal levels sometimes lack the capacity to leadthe National Earthquake Council was established
as an independent body to support a largescale 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 thein 2005. Unfortunately, these reports were notpolitical structure to translate social priorities intotranslated 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, thestandards, planning issues, and corruption have contributed togovernment 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 registeredunrealistic, as the minimum compliance levels were unaffordableon 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 theirstandards that reflect local building practices and affordability.

implementation.

When standards are set too high, it is impossible for people tocomply. Zimbabwe also illustrates the need to replace top-down

That vision was hardly compatible either with local customs or thepolicy-making processes with participatory approaches. This caseabsorption 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 ofregulations 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 relevanceof building standards. However, persistent problems with building

39

40

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCESpecifically, in the area of standards and building“stratification” of technical standards to respondcodes, 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 byevident 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 gradualoften neglect social and economic considerations

improvements in the vast sector of vernacular andand 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 thequalification and licenses are problematic. Theywidespread practice of simply transposing highly

tend to be based on professional practice in thesophisticated 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 theProfessional qualification frequently requires aunique risk patterns, history, building traditions,Northern-style education, which rarely considers

and economic and social constraints of thevernacular construction, even in low-income

originating country. It typically confined thiscountries. As a result, young professionals areimportant 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 experienceand advancing critical knowledge of vernacular andof local implementers and overestimated their

non-engineered structures.

own capacity to enforce overly ambitious,
expensive standards.

Failure of codes to address locallyprevalent non-engineered construction

Absence of guidance for improved
resilience of traditional formsof 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 theindigenous to the borrowing country are notbuilding codes of Peru and Nepal). Such forms ofincluded. However, indigenous construction

construction typically account for 70 to 80 percent

practices are particularly relevant for low-incomeof residential construction in developing countries.

populations. Failure to consider improvement ofWith some attention to proven components ofhealth 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 theirinformal 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. Inof them do not yet offer any adequate range orseveral developing countries, this type of dwelling

01
Chapteraddresses the housing needs of more than 50
percent of the population and at least 20 percent of
the urban and suburban populations.46
Adobe construction is used and will continue tobe used in many seismically active countries, inspite of the fact that poor-quality adobe houses
do not perform well in earthquakes. In mostcountries where adobe is widely used, however,there are no formal building codes or guidelines
for adobe construction. This exclusion loses thepotential for significant marginal improvement of
economically and socially feasible risk reduction.
In some countries, such as Argentina and El
Salvador, building codes explicitly prohibit adobe
construction in urban areas.47

understanding and improvement of those building
traditions. In some cases, indigenous adaptations
have proven resilient to natural hazards. The
dhajji dewari, a traditional form of timber andmasonry infill construction common in Northern
Pakistan, has evolved over centuries and exists insimilar forms in other earthquake-prone countries.
During the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, most ofthese structures suffered some damage, but very
few collapsed. However, as no code of practiceand formal recognition existed for this form of
construction, donors were initially reluctant tosupport the construction of self-built dhajji dewari
in the aftermath of the disaster.48

By ignoring or even prohibiting the types of
construction that low-income groups can afford,
codes effectively limit research and development
for improving traditional techniques, materials
testing, and quality control. Thus these alternative
forms of construction remain vulnerable. In turn,this lack of recognition eliminates opportunities
for technically informed guidance for ownerbuilders of traditional structures. In the absenceof regulatory recognition, it is increasingly difficult
to access finance and insurance for traditionalbuilding types.

Failure of building codes to address
the prevalent pattern of incremental
construction

The failure to address vernacular technologies
in building codes has been an impediment to theresidential construction, accounting for 50 to 90

Building codes typically fail to recognize theincremental process of construction. Incremental
construction refers to the gradual step-by-stepprocess in which owner-builders append or
improve building components as funding, time,or materials become available.49 In many citiesof developing countries, this phased process of
self-built construction is the dominant pattern ofpercent of new housing.50

41

42

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCEOver the past few decades, governments haveexperimented with many different approaches

Lack of quality control for building
materials and equipment

to deal with a severe shortage of housing—with

A critical factor in building performance, aside frommixed results. In Latin America, households thatdesign and construction practice, is the quality

were unable to meet housing needs through formalof building materials. Resilient building design

sector mechanisms typically resorted to informal

is based on assumptions regarding the strength

solutions, specifically by obtaining illegallyand performance of constituent materials. In

subdivided lots and constructing their houses
incrementally. Without the benefits of health andsafety regulation, such informal development
continues to account for a major portion of the
housing supply in Latin America.51
Incremental construction has been accepted inorder to assure design performance of buildings,
materials must be tested and certified as meeting
design specifications. Many low- and middleincome countries lack the network of accreditedmaterials testing laboratories necessary to certify
the quality of building materials. This testing
and certification is particularly important formodern construction materials, such as steel andseveral 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 thehave focused on community involvement and1970s, India’s Central Building Research Instituteon encouraging self-help home building andrenovation activities by households in urban
settlements. However, the building regulatory

in Roorkee carried out extensive testing of earthen
construction materials and applications as the basis
for guidance on non-engineered construction.

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.

continuing oversight through the extended periodof construction.

Reinforced concrete is the principal structural
material for urban expansion areas around theworld. It allows for the construction of multistory
buildings and is deceptively easy to use. The
collapse of poor-quality reinforced concretebuildings 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 testinglaboratory. Without this testing, the quality ofconcrete construction varies widely and can resultin failure during earthquakes. The “as built” does
not always meet the design specification for thematerial. 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 thetesting can determine the tensile strength or

proportion of cement to sand to aggregate andbrittleness of steel building components. Without

to water. Improper proportions and possible

accredited independent testing, there is a risk ofcontamination of sand or aggregates with salt orusing 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 inwater shortage. The 2011 collapse of the Langata

Kenya (Box 1.1) also reveals deficiencies in bothSouthern Bypass building in Kenya is largely

mandating and enforcing these essential tests.

attributed to the type of sand used, which wasvery fine and flour-like. It has no bonding capacity

Limited access to code documents or
training for code complianceand contains many impurities, which lessen the

Builders and homeowners cannot comply withstrength 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 reachingprovide the necessary friction and tightly hold thepoor and illiterate builders. Literacy levels amongconcrete to the steel.)homeowners, engineers, architects, politicians,

quarry dust. Quarry dust, as the name suggests, isJamaica illustrates the nature of the challenge. The
Jamaica Building Code requires the certificationof four key building materials: cement, aggregate,concrete, and concrete masonry units. But theand builders vary enormously, and a distinction
must be made between the guidance and support
required by the general public (homeowners) andthe various categories of professionals.

present Jamaica Building Code is 107 years old,

Building and land use regulatory frameworks

dating from 1908, and is a voluntary rather thanare often written in a language that is difficult tomandatory code. In Jamaica, cement is usually

understand, particularly for informal builders andcertified at port of entry. Other materials are not

low-income homeowners. Regulations must be

consistently checked, as site inspection is notprecise in order to ensure accurate and consistentmandatory and is rare in practice. The provisioninterpretation in case of litigation. However,for certification of building materials exists, but

compliance cannot be achieved if codes are notis not enforced and is therefore ineffective. A

translated into layman’s language and if they areproposed 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 inconstruction meet required standards. Structuralsteel and reinforcing bar (“rebar”) are critical tobuilding performance. The structural performance
characteristics of steel depend on constituent
materials and the fabrication process. Materials

43

44

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

1.5— Weakness in buildingcode administration andinstitutional capacity

basic regulatory services is a function of both the

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 forbuilding regulation at the local level. However, evenlimited resources can be put to more effective use.
Other forces such as opaque governance practices,
regulatory capture, and corruption can hold backmore immediate common sense solutions andcontribute to a significant increase of risks in thebuilt environment.

pace of development and the country’s level of
economic development.
Developing countries have, for the most part, beenland or to provide adequate basic services toresidents of their rapidly growing urban centers.
Some key obstacles have included shrinking central
government transfers, inadequate local tax bases
to pay for the delivery of services to a growing
population, inadequate institutional capacity
to prepare mid- and long-term development
strategies, and insufficient funding to implement
these strategies.

Shortage of technically qualified
personnel and funding at local andmunicipal levels

Few municipalities have complete authority overtaxation, and so they struggle to create and sustain
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. Theytax 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 andeven 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 nothave qualified technical staff.53

As building stocks in developing countries areprojected to double within the next 15 to 20

The extent to which municipal authorities canyears, the pressure on local governments andimprove the supply of serviced land and delivermunicipal 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 aremandate.

underresourced and unable to adequately perform their limited rolein conducting plan reviews and inspections of construction. The very

Because revenues are low, municipalities have difficulty coveringmodest 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 andof delivering more robust building permit services. These ideas haveresources are very inadequate. Storage facilities for filing and the

not yet been implemented, despite prevailing seismic risks in thefiling process itself are manual. The official land use plan for the local

country.

01
Chapter

officials, adequately enforce building codes, andpoverty, and in low-income countries it may seemmanage risks associated with new construction is

to be an intractable problem for efforts to create

only growing.

a robust environment for building regulatory

Many countries and cities fail to make effective usecompliance.55

of private sector technical resources to augment

In its various forms, corruption remains angovernmental regulatory manpower. This failure

entrenched, man-made failure—one thathas constrained regulatory capacity.

destabilizes the construction industry, stymies

The more direct implication of low municipal
capacity is that local planning and building
agencies are often unable to conduct plan reviewsof building projects or to carry out building
inspections. Paradoxically, there are cases (forexample, transition economies such as Tajikistan,
Vietnam, or Ukraine) in which severely constrained
regulatory capacity coexists with the executionof extensive untargeted and ineffective building
inspections that are not prioritized on risk-based
principles. This points to patterns of lack of
capacity combined with ineffective use of scarce
control resources.

the necessary reforms of building oversightmechanisms, and is a dominant factor in the scaleof fatalities in earthquakes.56 The manifestations ofcorruption related to the construction sector canbe divided in three major categories:• Corruption linked to government contracts• Corruption linked to theft• Corruption linked to circumventing regulations
The evidence suggests that combined, thesedifferent streams of corruption lead to poorquality construction. They also lead to insufficientmaintenance, which can significantly reduce theeconomic return to investments while carrying highhuman 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 withsites and unsafe structures as a populist appeal

TABLE 1.1— Overview of corruption types and related activities
Major types ofcorruption and drivers

Most common activities

Scale of problem and examples

Manipulation of
government contracts

Manipulating budget decisions, project selection,tender specification, contract negotiations or
renegotiations, and procurement outcomes.

Transparency International points out in its
2011 Bribery Index that “works contracts andconstruction” ranks the lowest out of 19 different
sectors, a score consistent with research outcomesfrom previous years. 57

Theft of materials andother assets

Theft of materials and building equipment,
especially in relation to public procurement andworks.

In Indonesia, a physical audit of a community-driven
development program that focused on construction
found that an estimated 24 percent of expenditures
were lost in materials theft. 58

Circumvention ofregulations

Bribes paid to building officials, inspectors, orengineers delegated by public authorities tocarry out appropriate controls. Bribes paid tolicensing authorities to obtain a right to practice.

In some countries with corrupt regulatory regimes,
the proportion of buildings that collapse due toinadequate inspections is 75 percent on average,
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 forlarge-scale regularization programs in exchange forvotes, although most of the area was consideredvulnerable to floods and landslides.61
This report focuses on the third of the three typesof corruption identified above.
Consistent sources of data point to the nature andthe depth of overwhelming corruption in building
controls. The World Bank Enterprise Survey showsthat 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 insoutheastern Europe and Central Asia.63
The survey suggests that of all administrativetransactions, construction permitting is theregulatory area most prone to corruption—more
so than meeting with tax inspectors, obtaining animport license, or applying for a water connection.
Corruption in building code enforcement isassociated 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 withsophisticated earthquake-resistant provisions
prior to the earthquake. This failure was first andforemost 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
practices develop on the ground. These factors
led a prominent company specializing in risk
management and information services to conclude
that• Reducing safety standards to benefit theregulated industry;• Conversely, increasing safety standards tounsustainable or unaffordable levels for local
owners and builders;“almost all of the damage caused by theearthquake, and almost all of the deaths
caused by the collapse of inadequately• Creating unwarranted barriers to entry to protect
the regulated industry from competition; and/or• Stalling reform efforts.

designed and constructed buildings was

In Jordan, a comprehensive review of building

avoidable.”

codes in the mid-1990s was driven by parties within64

the construction industry, consulting firms, andRecent statistical evidence shows that 83 percent

the Engineers’ Association that efficiently lobbiedof all deaths from earthquakes in the past three

for excessively high factors of safety regardless of

decades have occurred in countries consideredmost corrupt by Transparency International. The
correlation is striking, and shows that the majorityof fatalities from earthquakes can be attributed
largely to regulatory failure and the effects ofcorruption.65

affordability and implementation skills. The needto find economically viable solutions was therefore
undermined by this effort. The introduction ofthese new standards created tensions with local
engineers, who lacked the technical support tomeet new requirements. The sudden change in

Corruption or regulatory capture?

requirements led to increased construction costs

In practice, corruption and regulatory capture canand a professional competency gap that resulted in

be difficult to differentiate. Regulatory capturecases of building collapse.

occurs when special interests co-opt policy makers,
and especially regulatory agencies, to further their

Regulatory capture can stall necessary andown ends. Regulatory agencies eventually comelegitimate regulatory reforms. The promising

to be dominated by the very industries they werelegislation passed by the government of Turkey incharged with regulating, and eventually to act in

the immediate aftermath of the devastating 1999

ways that benefit those industries rather thanearthquake introduced significant innovation into

the public.

building code enforcement with strong potential toRegulatory 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

The practical effects of capture in building code

after the passage of the decree,66 other professional

implementation can considerably alter regulatoryinterest groups led an opposition campaign against

outcomes and lead to unintended consequences,the enactment of more rigorous requirements forsuch as:professional qualification.67

47

48

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

Defining transparency

///

///

For the purpose of this report,
transparency in regulation
development means that interested
parties have the opportunity toprovide their views to government via
an open consultation process while
the regulation is being developed andafter it is implemented. Transparency
in regulatory implementation alsomeans that people who must comply
with regulations have access tothese regulations and can readily
understand their requirements.

Lack of transparency indesign and implementation ofregulatory processes

or are able to benefit from land value gains where

Accountability means that regulatory policyof keeping these interest groups at arm’s length

public authorities are investing in infrastructure.

development, administration, and enforcement
are subject to public scrutiny so that regulators areaccountable for their action.

Introducing transparency raises the challenge
from building oversight processes. The depth andsustainability of building code compliance is largely
determined by the leadership of political andReform experience in building oversight procedures

regulatory officials (at both the national and local

in areas such as health, sanitation, and educationlevels) in addressing the root causes of regulatory

demonstrates that a commitment to the quality

capture and obstruction.

of effective public services is determined by the
degree of transparency and the existence of a levelplaying field for all who need to access information.

In building control procedures, the deliberatechoice of not implementing transparent oversightprocedures increases the cost of the regulatory

Closely related to corruption and capture, aapproval process. Lack of transparency disengages

pervasive lack of transparency in regulatory

developers and owners, who will thus continue todesign and implementation repeatedly degrades

be uninformed and unable to submit complete andthe quality and impacts of building regulations.

compliant building project applications. This factor

Oftentimes, the failure to introduce transparency
lies in the protection of a system of “insider
trading” and cronyism. In these instances, only

can considerably weaken compliance with land use
and building codes.

insiders have access to good development parcels

BOX 1.5 — Why the success of effective building controls in Trinidad and Tobago hinges on acommitment to transparency
The government of Trinidad and Tobago continues to push for theits 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 frombuilding control procedures.

civil servants in development agencies, who resist transparency bypostponing 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 theThis example illustrates how emerging economies can be boldwater 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 thethe approval requirements of various planning agencies. Doing so willtransparency element attached to any change process. Transparency

allow them to attest to compliance with agency requirements withshould 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

1.6— Costly andinefficient building code
implementation procedures

building or occupancy permit are so complex,

In addition to issues with design of legislation andscarce municipal resources regularly coexist withgovernance, building permitting and inspections
procedures frequently raise the cost of compliancefor builders to high and unsustainable levels.
Arbitrary and time-consuming building control
administrative procedures are often perceived as
the strongest disincentives for compliance withbuilding regulations.

Increased bureaucratic burden
does not correlate with more
effective inspections

costly, and time-consuming that they inhibit code
compliance.
Paradoxically, low enforcement capacity andoverelaborated bureaucratic practices, highly
restrictive regulations, and redundant inspections.
Such patterns are seen in developing countries
with a colonial background and in transition
economies. Although the failure to inspect has direconsequences, the opposite case of overinspection
also yields poor regulatory outcomes.
For example, Doing Business 2015’s rankings on
construction permit efficiency ranked the RussianFederation 156th, Uzbekistan 149th, and Moldova
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 thanregulatory 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 ofburden through multiple and random visits of construction sites, theysize or risk profile.

do not support compliance by educating the public or builders. In theformal building sector, compliance with building code requirements

Obtaining approval for a construction project is one of the mostis 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 durationof 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 ofabout half of all businesses, with two visits a year on average.

seismic risks in the country. Soviet-era construction norms are still inuse; though outdated, they should in principle mitigate earthquake

However, most of these control activities are of little benefit for publicconsequences 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 rifeand 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. Manyof inspections.

inspections, in fact, appear to be conducted primarily for graft—in

49

50

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCEThis is true, in particular, of fire safety inspections.
Over 40 percent of businesses in Ukraine areinspected per year, with two visits on average.
The most regularly updated indicator relating
to safety of buildings is fire safety, and theaforementioned countries are covered by theinternational statistical compendium compiledby the International Association of Fire andRescue 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 lessthan 1 in 100,000 for most OECD countries.68
This data illustrates how countries with very
intrusive regulatory systems can still end up withdisappointing records on safety.69
In Peru, one of the most important procedures toensure building safety is the system of technicalinspections administered by CENEPRED (theNational Center for Estimation, Prevention andReduction of Disaster Risk) and the municipalities.
This system is based on comprehensive

Opaque language and limited focus on
the poor

inspections of a large number of detailed technicalOftentimes, 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 becatering to the housing needs of low-income people

subject to renewal. In practice, a large number ofare not aware of official building requirements andbuildings 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
not apply for a license in the first place. Because
the system is based on licensing and not on site
inspections, there is no way to detect off-the-map
structures. A large share of buildings is neverinspected. As for those which are checked, there is
ample evidence that overzealous inspection does

educational level and their limited interaction withplanning and building agencies. In the housing
sector, a major constraint is simply the ability ofowners and builders to understand and conformto official requirements. In India, Tanzania,
and Kenya, for example, planning regulations,

not necessarily benefit safety. The government isstandards, 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—canfocused approach to urban safety.70

read or speak English.

01
Chaptervery high fees for planning and construction
permits, as well as other local licenses.
In Haiti, five years after the devastating earthquakeof 2010, building authorities continue to charge
developers construction permit fees equivalent to16 percent of the cost of construction. This cost canbe 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 theconstruction 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 theinformal sector.

Excessive permitting fees
Transaction costs borne by owners and builders
for construction permits and inspections continue

Failure to mobilize private sector
resources for code implementation

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 Businessin 2014, it took an average of 14 procedures and2015 not only experience the regulatory failures

196 days to get a construction permit. Formal

previously described in this chapter; they also havepermitting fees averaged a staggering 12.8 percent

enforcement systems that rely solely on publicof the overall cost of construction in the region. By

authorities and municipal building code officials tocomparison, the aggregate regulatory fees paid formonitor construction and verify compliance withplanning and construction approvals is equivalentother applicable laws.

to 1.7 percent of the overall cost of construction inOECD countries. This fee is only 0.6 percent of theconstruction cost in Japan.71

One of the greatest challenges for planning andbuilding code enforcement agencies in developing
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 andtax 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 andAs 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”

Reforming countries have seen the limitationsof sole reliance on public resources in buildingcode enforcement. Over the past decades, theyor submunicipal level. As of 2015, there were only
four agents in the ministry to handle a city of nearly
2 million people. This is a paradox at a time when
private civil engineering expertise abounds in thehave pursued different forms of collaboration

city, and the national school of engineering ofwith private building professionals in code

Bamako73 continues to enjoy a strong reputation atcompliance strategies, such as contracting out

the regional level.

some control functions and establishing peer-

have not tapped into resources of skilled private

Failure to exploit information andcommunications technology for
efficient code implementationengineers 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

review mechanisms. However, most developing
countries have not yet taken this path. TheyIn the city of Bamako, Mali, authorities rely on

and inspection procedures.

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
for building code and permitting administration.
Out of 19 countries, two are upper-middle-income
countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica)and only three are low-income countries (Kenya,
Nepal, Rwanda).74 As of today, only two countries
in Sub-Saharan Africa have an operating online
construction permitting system. Most countries inCentral Asia do not have one.
The slow adaptation of ICT solutions for buildingcode administration perpetuates inefficient
practices and postpones such advances as easily
accessible archives; coordinated inspections;
integration of land titling, cadastral, land use, andbuilding information; improved documentation;and effective mechanisms to relay inspection
results back to builders and owners.
Although many of these deficiencies can beaddressed through legal, regulatory, and process

reforms, information technology has a keyrole in improving efficiency, transparency, andaccountability in building code administration.
The Istanbul Seismic Risk Mitigation andEmergency Preparedness Project (ISMEP),
initiated in 2005 and supported by the WorldBank with a $460 million loan, was a majorrisk mitigation project established within the
Istanbul Governorship Provincial Administration.
Component C of the project aimed to improve
institutional and technical capacities of buildingcode administration by carrying out a thorougheffort at reengineering and automating processes.
Illustrating the range of issues at stake, the initialdiagnostic carried out by the project team pointedout dysfunctional mechanisms that could be
addressed by ICT solutions. Figure 1.2 presents an
overview of these issues and how they could best be
addressed by ICT.

FIGURE 1.2 — A range of procedural and administrative challenges for building permits in Turkey at theoutset of the ISMEP project
Source: Yelda Kirbay Reis (ISMEP)

Identified Problems

Proposals for Improvement

Lack of monitoring system on work flows in the municipality andbetween municipality and other public institutions (i.e. Building permit
and occupation permit application)

Document Management System (E-Document Management SystemTSE 13298)

Lack of capability on reporting information about status of applicationand public complaints

Document Management System, Call Center, and Service Desk
Implementation, e-forms (web)Lack of digital data accessibility (spatial and non spatial) in the
database of municipality

Data (spatial) Collection- Update- Digitalization and Integration
Services and Document Management System

Slow and disorganized access to archived documents

Establishing Digital Archive System (scanning-indexing andavailability of documents in digital environment by municipal staff)

Lack of backing-up, storing capacity and information security in themunicipality

Establishing ISO 27001 information security management systeminfrastructure and procedures and procurement of disaster recovery
systems

Disorganized and non-standard work flows related to land use andbuilding permit procedures in the municipality

Analysis and improvement of work and process flows and formulationof e-forms

53

54

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

Regulatory resources not allocated inproportion to risk exposure

Absence of appeal process for
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 ofof 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
become the basis for design, construction,
inspection, and compliance. Without a functioning
building regulatory regime, hazard mapping fails
to convert scientific knowledge into effective risk
reduction measures on the ground.

By nature, legislative and regulatory provisions canbe open to different interpretations. There is often
uncertainty related to administrative or technicalregulations. Differences of interpretation among
design practitioners and inspectors or permitting
agencies can result in costly delays. The absence ofIn 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
and geologic hazards. In the Comoros, Côte
d’Ivoire, Lesotho, and Ecuador, codes currently
lack a building classification and related design
requirements. Thus, building enforcement
agencies and builders do not have a common setof references to indicate the appropriate degree
and intensity of regulatory controls for the specificclass of risk into which the building falls.

Even where appeal mechanisms are formally inplace, they may not be sufficiently established tooffer any effective conflict resolution. In mostcountries of western Sub-Saharan Africa, suchas Burkina Faso, Mali, and Senegal, the law has
provisions allowing (in theory) the appeal ofdecisions from the land and building authorities
through the formal administrative judicial court
system. However, such courts have no particularexpertise in dealing with issues in construction.
Because of rigid and costly procedural rules
imposing multiple audits, resolution can typicallydrag over 5 to 10 years, making this option
impractical and undermining the credibility of theformal process of dispute resolution.

01
Chapter

1.7— Failure to institutionalize
post-disaster regulation

regulation), and by Barbados after Hurricane

Missed opportunity to introduce
regulatory process for public buildings

1.8— Conclusion

Though the unregulated informal sector poses

The drivers of disaster and chronic risk continue

many challenges to public regulators of building
and land use, there are opportunities for regulatoryintervention in the area of public sector buildings.
For instance, school building construction istypically managed by national or local authorities.
Management and funding authority reside withgovernmental entities which should have theopportunity to exercise quality control over thesiting, design, and construction of school buildings.
School construction offers an opportunity todevelop and demonstrate the benefits of building
regulation and code compliance. This is an
opportunity that has been ignored in many low-

Gilbert in 1988 (failure to improve wind design
requirements).

to grow, particularly in low- and middle-income
countries. The processes of development drive
populations from rural to urban areas, often to
hazard-exposed floodplains, coastal areas, orseismic zones. This rapid expansion of urban
population is taking place without the benefit ofregulation to protect the health, safety, and welfareof new urban dwellers. Unregulated land use allows
the settlement of hazardous sites, and unregulated
construction allows the creation of vulnerable
buildings. Rudimentary regulatory frameworks havebeen established in many cities of the developingworld, but they are currently inefficient andand middle-income countries from Haiti to China.

largely ineffective. Weaknesses include incomplete

Inability to take advantage of disaster
experience to create permanentbuilding regulatory institutions

local conditions and practices, inept administration

In the aftermath of a major disaster, the need to
improve construction quality and establish aneffective building regulatory mechanism is broadly
recognized. Where reconstruction is funded byexternal agencies, some building standards areoften imposed as a condition of funding. Thereis also sporadic training of local construction
workers in improved resilient construction.
However, these measures are not sustainable
without the institutionalization of a permanentbuilding regulatory authority, one with capacity for
effective code implementation and maintenance.
The failure to create permanent institutions aftera disaster is illustrated by Haiti after its 2010

legislative and legal foundations, codes unsuited toof codes at the local level, and failure to train
and support the building sector to make code
compliance feasible. Efforts to transfer code
documents from developed countries have provenunrealistic, inappropriate, and self-defeating. Major
obstacles to reducing risk and improving the qualityof construction remain: the failure to address
and improve local building culture, the failure toestablish the legitimacy of the regulatory process
through open processes of code development andimplementation, and the failure to invest in or
support the development of efficient and effective
building regulatory capacity. All these have allowed
disaster and chronic risk to expand in growing
urban areas and have done nothing to address riskin existing vulnerable settlements.

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

2.1— Overview ofregulatory processregulatory implementation and compliance to

Building and land use regulation has been key

have indicated that while developing countries

address chronic and acute risks in construction.
Recent reviews of the progress under the HFAhave improved their legislative frameworks forto successful disaster risk reduction and hazard

disaster risk reduction, serious challenges remain

adaptation in the developed world. Tools for
reducing disaster risk and adapting to hazards havebeen constructed on the foundation of regulatory
measures originally established to deal with chronic

regimes to improve resilience at the municipal andlocal levels.

urban risks related to fire, structural safety, andThe 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 disasterthe basis for regulation to reduce larger-scalerisks. 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 andwith mature building control mechanisms have56

in implementing effective building regulatory

must take into account the reality on the ground.

experienced 47 percent of disasters globally, but

Implementing good practice should follow athey have accounted for only 7 percent of disaster

flexible and incremental process consistent withfatalities.75 The smaller share of human losses in

the level of understanding, skills, and income of thehigh-income countries is correlated with better

various target groups involved in construction.

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

02
Chapter

The purpose of this chapter is to describe thebuilding code is developed and updated (and how

core institutional components of a functioning

stakeholders are consulted in the process) criticallybuilding regulatory regime. The components anddetermines if a code is feasible in the local context

practices described in this chapter are typicaland serves as an effective and affordable tool forof mature regulatory systems that have evolved

risk reduction.

over an extended period of industrialization andurbanization.

Building code development is usually a process

Key components of an effective
building regulatory regime

involves both central and local stakeholders. It is

led by authorities at a central level yet typicallyThree basic components form the core of any
building code regulatory regime:• A legal and administrative framework at thenational level;• A building code development and maintenanceprocess; and• Implementation of building and land use
regulation at the local level.
A legal and administrative framework atimportant that codes be developed with reference
to local practice and locally available materials andthat they allow for innovation and improvement inconstruction practice. Codes provide an importantmeans to communicate new knowledge to practice.
The code development process must enjoy theconfidence and understanding of the building
sector and the general public.
Oftentimes code development involves a central
body that has the capacity to develop a model///

the national level. This framework includes

code. This is then adopted by authorities at///

the institutions that deliver enabling legislation
for the establishment and enforcement of land
use and building regulations, including dispute
resolution mechanisms. In a broader sense, thiscomponent also includes other enabling legislationthat supports materials testing and certifications ofbuilding professionals and organizations. In higher-

the central level or subnational level (state),
which has responsibility for local legislation andimplementation. These bodies also provide themechanism for code maintenance and updating.
Many codes are model documents developed at
a higher level of authority than is responsible
for enforcement. But the level responsible forincome settings, this capacity typically extends toimplementation and enforcement is also involved

legislation on professional liability and insurance

in regulatory development and consultation.

mechanisms. In some cases, and as a result ofUniform building code provisions at the state

constitutional arrangements, enabling legislation

or national level contribute to compliance byfor building regulation can be organized at thedesigners and builders as well as regulatory

subnational level.

authorities. To be effective in risk reduction,

A building code development and///maintenance process. This process is essentialbuilding codes must be mandatory, and compliancemust be feasible.

///

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 theAn open participatory process with representation

actual reduction of risks. Building regulationfrom all relevant stakeholders is necessary to

implementation includes primary activities of

ensure regulations that represent the values andpreconstruction plan review, on-site building

resources of the relevant community. How ainspection, and permitting. These activities involve

///

57

58

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCEFIGURE 2.1 — Components of a building code regulatory regime
Core components of a building code regulatory regime

Legal and administrative
infrastructure•

National legal and institutional
infrastructure to design andsupport building codeadministration system

Building code development
and maintenance•A national development process•

Mechanisms to ensure code islocally appropriate and affordable•

Inclusion of risk-based approach•

Elements of prescriptive andperformance-based measures•

Component 1

Periodic review and updatingprocess

Other support institutions

Implementation
mechanisms

Other institutions andregulatory mechanisms

Transparency in building codeadministration•

Rule of law•

Security of tenure•

Process efficiency•

Building finance•Participation of private sector
and compliance checks using
third-party mechanisms•

Insurance•

Professional education•

Professional codes of practice•

Quality control for building materials••

Risk-based implementation•

Conflict resolution mechanisms

Component 2

Component 3“Regulatory Ecology”

direct interaction with building designers andsecurity of tenure, and functioning building financebuilders and ensure compliance with promulgatedand insurance mechanisms.

code requirements. This chapter will describe key
practices within compliance strategies that seek
to improve quality and compliance with basic
standards of safety. Building code implementationis, in most cases, a function of the local or
municipal government.

Regulatory ecology: Theinterdependent institutional context
As used here, “regulatory ecology” refers to thecontext of the regulatory process within a range ofcomplex interdependent and evolving institutions.
The core components of a building and land use
regulatory framework clearly do not function ina vacuum. In the developed world, regulatory
capacity has evolved in parallel with a complex
mix of supporting tools and institutions that haveprovided legal and financial mechanisms, as wellas certified technical competence, required todeliver regulatory services. Key elements of thisregulatory ecology include the general conditions
for commercial development, such as rule of law,

Important institutions specific to the building
sector include accredited building professional
education, professional societies and related codesof practice, accredited training institutions forthe construction labor force, licensing proceduresfor building professionals, and quality control
processes for building materials.
This chapter focuses on the code development,
maintenance, and implementation processes.

02
Chapter

2.2— Key components of abuilding 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 constructionon unsafe sites.
The specific configuration and location ofthese components as well as the distributionof responsibility between national and local
government and the private sector will vary fromcountry 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 institutionsof the regulatory ecology may be absent orlargely dysfunctional.

Legal and administrative capacity
The legislative foundation for a building andland 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 andadministrative component at the national level will
typically include the following elements:• Comprehensive building codes for engineered
structures and appropriate guidance on nonengineered 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 thecompetency are key to improving the quality andpromotion of regulatory governance, including

safety of construction.

transparency and accountability.
• Initiatives to continuously inform, educate,

Code development and maintenanceand collaborate with local governments andBuilding codes are at the heart of the building

municipal authorities implementing building andregulatory regime. Building codes translate societal

land use regulations.

values related to public health, safety, and general• Initiatives to support hazard mapping and risk
assessment, to evaluate building performance

welfare into specific requirements in prescriptive
or performance terms.

and encourage innovation, to support educationand training for building professionals andCodes establish minimum physical standards

construction trades, and to support public

for the design, construction, maintenance, andunderstanding of the health and safety benefits

renovation of buildings. Codes communicate bothof regulatory compliance.

social and technical values (including implicitly• Establishment of minimum qualifications for

acceptable risk) and serve as a mechanism tobuilding professionals, including engineers,

introduce new social and technical understandingarchitects, 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 nongovernmentalof building professionals and building officials. They tend to be moreorganizations (NGOs), such as the International Code Council insuccessful when they establish

the U.S. Professional associations of engineers and architects may
operate under public right to practice legislation, as in Ontario,
Canada, or multistakeholder practitioner boards, such as in the stateof Victoria, Australia.
Some regulatory regimes have relied on licensing mechanisms forbuilding professionals. Such mechanisms serve to strategicallystructure and expand the technical capacity and responsibilities of theprofessionals. These efforts are important for two reasons.
First, licensing mechanisms can critically contribute to ensuring
compliance with building codes and standards. For example,
professionals who routinely fail to comply with building codes andstandards stand to lose their license to practice or can be disciplined
in some other way.

• Sound entry-level qualifications based on educational andexperience credentials and knowledge of building regulations.
• Training and testing to verify knowledge of local codes andlegal context.
• Continuing education to remain up-to-date with changing codes
and requirements.
• Mechanisms to prevent licensing from becoming an unfair market
entry control tool in the hands of market incumbents.
In some cases, licensing authorities may require building practitioners
to carry professional liability insurance, as is now the case in France,
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 tofunction 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:
///

///

Recognizing the tradeoff of safety and affordability,

Characteristics of effective codes
Experience has indicated that there are several
basic characteristics of effective codes:

feasible codes must aspire to provide the highest
level of amenity and safety that can be achieved
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
stakeholders, including building professionals,
developers, and materials manufacturers, as well
as representatives of the finance, commercial, andsocial services sectors. The development of codeprovisions integrates judgments of acceptablerisk and affordability. The process should bebased on broad societal consensus. It must also be
inclusive of the range of relevant building practices,
including the non-engineered construction of
the informal sector in addition to sophisticatedengineered structures. An open, consensus-based
code development process significantly increases
acceptance and compliance by the building sector.
• Comprehensive and inclusive of all///

safety regulation are lost. Authorities need to
strike the right balance between these competinginterests and seek a sustainable compromise
through a transparent consultation of a broad rangeof stakeholders.
Given that the tradeoff between risk andaffordability is embedded in code provisions, it
is unrealistic to simply transfer codes from one
society to another. Judgment of acceptable risk forbuilding failure due to natural hazards is subject toseveral variables, including the perception of otherpotential investments in the reduction of otherrisks or in additional opportunities for social andeconomic development.
• Risk-based code development:///

aspects of the projects:

///

///

Building and land use regulation were initiallydeveloped to deal with a range of chronic hazards
including fire, structural collapse, epidemic
disease, and public health. In the past century,building codes and land use management have beendeveloped as mitigation or risk reduction measuresfor natural hazards such as earthquakes, floods, andextreme wind events.

Risk or potential loss is a function of threecomponents: hazard exposure, structure
vulnerability, and societal consequences of failure.76
Risk can be lessened by the reduction of any or allof these three components:• Hazard exposure, usually represented by a****reference hazard map• Potential structural failure under expected**hazard loads, which is the primary concern of**Particularly in urban areas, it is important thatthe technical provisions of the building codebuilding 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 onelectrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems;

the building function and occupancy.

**

**

61

62

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

Although the technical provisions of the buildingreference in building code forms an integral part ofcode 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 inthat they are applied through code implementationthese two ways:

and compliance.

Hazard mapping for building codes. The

///

///

Occupancy type and post-disaster///building code specifically addresses the reductionbuildings. Another aspect of risk that buildingof potential structural failure or irreparable

codes address is the consequence of failure ofdamage. The component of risk represented

specific structures and occupancy types. Codesby natural hazard is typically introduced to thetypically assign importance factors to specificcode by a hazard map that differentiates zones ofoccupancy 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, snowload, and landslide hazards.

///

These factors relate to the importance of the
facility in the post-disaster period and to the

Building requirements vary according to estimatedvulnerability of the occupants. Based on the

expected loads. Adequate hazard mapping forimportance factor, building provisions may be

BOX 2.2 — Building cyclone-resistant housing in Madagascar by linking hazard zoning maps andbuilding 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 existingon the codes of Reunion Island and Tonga. The codes are strictest

health centers and 4 percent of primary schools, in addition toin 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, theadditional 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 theand Management of Disasters set as its highest priority theDevelopment 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, suchdefine 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 andhabitat codes. If a public building fails, the decree provides for a public

The Madagascar Meteorological Department developed its windenquiry 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 thechange would affect the probability of cyclone landfall and windpossibility 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 partof a risk-based code. The structural requirements of the code aredetermined by reference to the wind risk map.

Sources: Sofia Bettencourt; World Bank 2013.

02
Chapterincreased over normal construction to further

This flexibility is important to facilitate

reduce the likelihood of failure. This reference tointroduction of new designs, materials, andrisk of hazard impact and to occupancy importanceconstruction 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, thegreatest concern for society. This prioritization

performance approach may be relevant as a meansof resources is particularly important in low- andmiddle-income countries.

techniques and materials. To the extent thattraditional building types can be demonstrated• Performance-based codes:///of recognizing the potential of indigenous building///

to provide required performance, they can beconsidered 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 andconsiderable technical sophistication on the part ofcan 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.
In response to this limitation, developed countries
are moving toward the use of performance codes.
Performance codes define the performance
objective rather than the specific solution.

///

///

They should provide adequate guidance todesigners and builders to facilitate compliance.
Simple and unambiguous code provisions increase
the efficiency of compliance, review, and inspection
while reducing potential conflicts of interpretation.

This means that any solution that meets theCodes should be designed and presented in terms

performance requirement can be deemed toappropriate for the user audiences. Sophisticatedconform 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 wereThis system established performance-based criteria against whichgoverned 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 theand 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 thea 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
Key takeawaycomplex provisions, while simpler forms of
construction using traditional indigenous materials

The characteristics of effective building codes are

and techniques should be accessible to builders

as follows:with less advanced technical training.

• They are developed through an open andparticipatory process that ensures deep andbroad expertise as well as a strong buy-in from• Periodic code review and updating:
///

///

Code documents must be subject to review andupdating on a regular basis on a three- to fiveyear cycle. This regular updating is important as
an opportunity to incorporate new knowledge
related to experience of building performanceand innovations in construction materials andpractice. It is also important as a means to adjust
to dynamically evolving social and economic
conditions in developing countries.

communities and building practitioners.
• The standards they set are affordable andconsistent with local income levels and resources.
• The risk reduction and mitigation measures are
consistent with local skills and capabilities.
• They encompass non-engineered forms of
construction to support gradual improvements inquality and safety.
• They establish a proportional response to risk
through reference to hazard mapping andprioritization of building occupancies.

02
Chapterplanning and land use requirements and• They allow for alternative compliance solutions to
support innovations or traditional building practices
that meet minimum safety requirements.
• They are accessible, clear, and understandable forbuilding practitioners.
• They are regularly updated to reflect incremental
progress in surrounding circumstances such as
skills development, new technologies and building
materials, emerging risks, and evolving income levels.

construction codes as well as if it meets otherrequirements set by other public agencies. The
reviewing authority or accredited agent is expected
to have the basic technical capacity to carry out
compliance checks at the design stage.
Issuance of the building permit. When****compliance with code, zoning, and other applicableregulations is confirmed, the local authority
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 technicalCompliance support oriented by plan
review, site inspections, and permitting

review of plans, and the various on-site inspections.
Inspection of construction. Each major phase of**

A typical building code compliance system includes
a capacity for building plan reviews, building site
inspections, and a permitting mechanism.
For new construction, there are five steps
that will guarantee compliance with relevant**

construction can be inspected by the municipality
engineers or their private accredited agents inorder to make certain that the work conforms to
the code, the building permit, and the approved
building plans. In New Zealand, the building codebuilding standards.

for most building types mandates no fewer thanThis section briefly describes these five steps andthe decision to carry out an inspection is

the practices that form the foundations of theirdetermined by a risk analysis that includes several

effective and efficient implementation.

criteria, such as the track record of the builder, theseven standard inspections. In other jurisdictions,type of construction or design, the characteristics

Five generic steps for buildingof the site, and other factors relevant to a municipal

compliance assurance

risk assessment. A number of states in Australia andSubmission of a building application to theregions in the U.K. follow this approach. They rely

local authority. This process usually requires theon relatively advanced information systems andapplicant to disclose information about who willmeans of data collection that are not necessarily

perform the work, what work will be done, whereavailable in all circumstances.

****the building will be located, and how it will be built.
Sketches, building plans, proof of land rights, andany other relevant documentation of the proposed
work must be submitted for review.

Issuance of the occupancy permit. Many****

jurisdictions mandate the issuance of occupancy
permits following a successful final inspection.
The occupancy permit confirms compliance with

Review process by the local authority. The

code requirements, conditions for insurance andbuilding 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 andeffective risk management

inspections minimizes the bureaucracy around

Transparency in building code administration****

allows for the effective disclosure of criticalinformation on building regulations. This in turngives building practitioners and owners the tools tobuilding controls as well as reduces the time,number of procedures, and transaction costs
needed to gain the necessary approvals.
Utilization of private sector third-party**

both comply with regulations and reduce excessiveengineering 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 affectedby 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 meansthat owners and builders who must comply withregulation have access to the regulation and canreadily 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 theentire construction permitting process.
• Providing clear guidelines on complete
construction permit application requirements.
Enhanced transparency can draw attention tocorrupt and opaque regulation or practices andshed light on inefficiencies, thereby encouraging

02
Chapterreform and modernization. A commitment to

as a percentage of the total investment cost intransparency 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 andto building code implementation, transparency

rarely exceeds 3 percent in countries with advanced

is considerably enhanced through the followingbuilding 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 wascode 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
associated with permanent or institutionalized• Regulations in plain language

practices, including• Regulations supported by user-friendly construction
guides with illustrations and examples• A transparent regulatory system. Easy access**• Requirements for “complete permit applications” thatare clearly defined**to accurate and clear information on regulatory
requirements from various approval agencies andbuilding code officials will reduce opportunity• Construction permit application forms that use plain
language and are standardized

costs typically experienced with more complex
and opaque procedures.
• A continuous, institutionalized process of• Permit applications and associated documentation**and plans that can be submitted electronicallystreamlining and modernizing permitting and• Application status and location available to trackinspections procedures. In many jurisdictions,**

onlinethe legislation specifically requires compliancewith a wide array of other laws related toenvironmental standards, land use planning,

Process efficiency and low transaction///

costs for building permits and inspections

national heritage, and so on, in addition to

Added costs of code compliance are largely athe procedures and placing them online canconsequence of increased design requirements

contribute, on average, to a reduction of 37

included in technical standards referenced bypercent of the time required to issue a buildingbuilding codes.

permit, according to the U.S. Center for///

Regulatory process costs, which cover review,inspection, and approval processes, include

building code requirements. Streamlining

Digital Government.
• The “one-stop-shop” role of the main building**code official or “chief building” official. In best**• Formal fees imposed by approval authorities, and• “Opportunity costs” associated with complex,
lengthy permitting procedures and the resulting
delays in making the building available for its
final intended use.

practice jurisdictions, chief building officers are
not only responsible for confirming compliancewith regulations administered by the municipal
building authority; they are also empowered
to confirm compliance with other agency

Since 2014, Doing Business has measured the costrequirements or other “applicable laws.”78 Givenof 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
by independent inspectors to supplement the• Time frames for the review of building permit**

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 toTime frames typically vary according to theseek 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 inFees should be based on the actual costs

building control, with useful experience emerging

associated with the review of building plansin 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 notis already institutionalized in countries as diverse

to subsidize other municipal functions.

as Colombia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia, 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

can be maximized by adding external resources

procedures with lower compliance costs include

and critical capacity to resource-constrained• Transparent and easy access to maps and regulatory

municipalities.

information for applicants and chief building officials.

Private sector participation in building controls• Streamlined permitting and inspections procedures

can follow different models of collaboration.

combined with ICT solutions.

It can consist of private sector engineers being• Chief building official’s comprehensive role.

delegated by local authorities to carry out thirdparty plan reviews and inspections (as in Germany• Established time frames for the review of building
permit applications.

and Austria). Alternatively, builders in some

• Fee levels that are based on cost recovery and do notjurisdictions can directly retain¬†approved private
independent engineers¬†to review construction

fulfill a property tax purpose.

plans and inspect buildings during construction (asUtilization of private sector in compliance checks///

in the United Kingdom).

///

Private engineering and architectural firms certified

The latter model involves builders directly hiringa private accredited inspection firm. In the Unitedby the public building regulatory department

Kingdom, Approved Inspectors are registered andprovide third-party reviews. Reviews andsupervised 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 planscomply with the building code, but only for thetypes of buildings for which they are approved
and registered.
The third model is less widespread and isassociated with an insurance-driven regulatory
regime in which insurance and warranty firms
engage private inspection firms for third-party
review. This approach is in place in France and isbeing gradually implemented in Spain and Italy. It
is relevant to upper-middle-income countries witha preexisting insurance market.
All three models point to innovative ways ofbringing new expertise into risk reduction without
necessarily relying solely on what may be limited
municipal technical resources.
In Austria and Quebec, Canada, the utilizationof private sector technical capacity relies moreheavily on designer and contractor licensing withless emphasis on third-party audits by municipal
or private inspectors. This approach provides aneven greater opportunity to engage the private
sector. This practice transfers a greater portionof compliance responsibility to the designer

Risk-based implementation

///

///

Allocating regulatory resources to maximize risk
reduction provides a rational basis for efficiently
and effectively prioritizing inspections inproportion to risk. This approach is particularly
important for municipalities and building control
agencies in developing countries that operatewith limited funding and must deal with rapidly
expanding building inventories.
The benefits of risk-based building permitting andinspections include• Achieving a proportionate and consistent
approach for plan review and inspectionof buildings.
• Enabling local authorities to focus resources onhigher-risk building projects.
• Providing authorities with opportunities
for process simplification, specifically forconstruction that presents lower risk in thelocal context.
• Enabling authorities to focus on builders with ahistory of noncompliance.
• Shifting the risk, responsibility, and liability backto the design sector, in which private designers

and builder.

and engineers have the skills, competencies, andexperience to function without controls or with

Key takeaway
Private sector solutions for building code implementation• Can help municipalities refocus on risks by bringing in
relevant and more robust expertise.
• Can substantially alleviate the pressure on
public enforcement.

limited controls.
• Reducing regulatory demands on builders
responsible for construction projects placed inlower-risk categories.
• Contributing to lower cost of compliance, fromthe perspective of both regulators and those• Are increasingly considered and tested in emerging
economies and lower-income settings to deal withcritical institutional bottlenecks.
• Must be supported by some institutionalarrangements to ensure relevant qualifications, avoid
conflicts of interest, and ensure minimal supervision
by independent or state authorities.
• Follow different modalities and forms of collaborationthat can be chosen based on the country orcity circumstances.

regulated.
Applying risk management to construction///

permit and inspections///

As of 2014, the World Bank counted 88 countries
that have, based on risk exposure, implemented
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
were implemented in developing countries, often
catalyzed by the publication of the Doing Business
report.80
In a bold reform initiated in 2011, FYR Macedonia
developed a risk-based system linking a
new classification of buildings with building
professional classes, allowing designers andcontractors licensed in only the top qualification
class to handle the more complex and higher-risk
classes of buildings. Not only has this approach

2.3— Regulatory ecology:
The interdependent
institutional context
The effectiveness and efficiency of building
and land use regulation depend on a broader
institutional context, referred to as regulatory
ecology. In the developed world, regulatory capacity
has evolved in parallel with a complex array of
supporting and interrelated institutions.

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 buildingof the surrounding economy. A safer built

regulations.81

environment depends on general rule of law andIntroducing risk-based mechanisms inconstruction permitting and inspections createstangible opportunities to initiate more in-depth
administrative simplification programs withthe aim of using resources more selectively andpublic acceptance of public authority to manage
collective risk. Compliance with public regulation
depends on public trust of municipal authorities.
Financial mechanisms, such as mortgage lending
and insurance, play a critical role in facilitating

reducing the administrative cost of compliance.

improved construction by funding compliant

Conflict resolution mechanisms

monetizing risk for a number of hazards.

Conflict resolution provides remedies forMore particular to the building sector are a range

persons or firms that can be adversely affected byof institutions that contribute directly to both thepermitting authorities. These mechanisms promote

improvement of quality in construction and thetransparency and a level playing field by addressing

reduction of disaster and chronic risk. In the areas

issues ranging from the interpretation of technicalof education and training, there exist professional

requirements, to sufficiency of building code

and workforce training institutions and bodies

design and compliance, to licensing of buildingthat accredit those institutions. There is an array

professionals. Conflict and appeal mechanismsof standards-setting organizations related totypically 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 forprocess is followed in a swift and efficient manner.

the building codes. Materials testing laboratories///

construction over time, while also quantifying and///exist to certify the quality of building materials andassemblies.
The intricate interplay of legal liability, financial
risk management, and insurance underwriting
serves to reinforce the regulatory process to ensurea 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 inadvance in these interdependent institutions of thebuilding quality and resilience. Security of tenure

regulatory ecology.

clearly depends on the rule of law.

Selected key elements of this regulatory ecology for

Building finance. To the extent that safe

the built environment include

///

///

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 publicplay a key role in facilitating code compliance andhealth, 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 beincremental 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 capitalfor 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 codedevelopment andmaintenance

Implementation
mechanisms

Public understanding and support for code
compliance as users and citizens
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 thatto the professional activities of all AIA members regardless of theircharacterizes 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,and competence. This code itself includes guidelines for the conduct

The NEC comprises seven members of the Institute who areappointed by the AIA’s Board of Directors. The NEC’s decisions mayof members in fulfilling those obligations.

be appealed to the Institute’s Executive Committee; if the NEC

The code is arranged in three tiers of statements: canons, ethicalthe 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• Canons are broad principles of conduct.
• Ethical standards are more specific goals toward which members
should aspire in professional performance and behavior.
• Rules of conduct are mandatory; violation of a rule is grounds fordisciplinary action by the Institute.
Commentary is provided for some of the rules of conduct and ismeant to clarify or elaborate the intent of a rule. The code applies

recommends termination, the decision is automatically appealed toof Procedure.
As part of its efforts to educate members about their obligations
under the Code of Ethics, to support AIA component executives,
and to inform the general public about ethical issues that arise in
the fields of architecture and design, the NEC conducts educational
programs on ethics at the AIA’s convention, the Institute’s annual
grassroots conference for component executives, and at various otherseminars and programs hosted by AIA components.
Source: American Institute of Architects.

Professional education. Safe and resilient

///

///

construction requires safe siting by planners
aware of hazards, and safe design by architects andengineers aware of safe design principles. It also
requires building officials with full understanding ofcode provisions. These essential built-environment
professionals must be adequately trained inaccredited institutions and individually licensed
on the basis of tested technical competence. Theircertified professional competence is criticallyimportant in the complex physical environmentof rapidly expanding urban areas. Professional
accreditation, certification, and licensing are allimportant 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 andregulation of their members’ professional conduct,

private building inspectors, engineers, architects,

both by developing codes of professional practiceand by helping to maintain codes and standards ofinstitutional accreditation. Professional societies

contractors, and builders. Many municipalities also
require specific training for the key functions of thebuilding department.

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

Training for construction industry and///labor force. All members of the construction///

requirements— can improve complianceand efficiency. More qualified designers,
contractors, and inspectors are better able toindustry—not just design and construction

evaluate alternative, vernacular, or innovative

professionals—must understand, accept, andbuilding approaches because they have a better

abide by building codes and standards. It is criticalunderstanding of building science and regulatorythat construction detailing be executed correctly

procedure. A balanced ecology involves training

and that construction materials be understoodinstitutions that are not limited to academic

and correctly applied. This is particularly
important for reinforced concrete and othernontraditional materials.

in developing a robust on-the-job training systemthat does not present a disproportionately highbarrier to entry for practitioners.

Quality control for building materials.

///

institutions. The private sector should be engaged///

Quality control of materials is essential in modern
construction. The integrity of a structure depends
on the quality of its materials and the methodof their preparation. Testing and certification of

Insurance. The insurance industry has played an

///

///

important role in the historical development ofbuilding regulation as a means to manage risk andexposure in many developed countries. Insurance isbased on the quantification and translation of riskbuilding materials and components by accredited

into monetary premiums that are comprehended bylaboratories is necessary for safe modernbuilding 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 Internationalof 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 alsoof local building departments. Evaluations are based on analysis

shows the business community and general public that the buildingof 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 anand evaluation of regulatory efficiency and effectiveness. The

independent, nongovernmental, nonprofit organization representing

accreditation process informs the building department of areasbuilding 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 pastcompanies, in turn, require code compliance,developed tools for estimating community fire risk

professional certification, and material quality

based on construction, firefighting capability, andcontrol. Effective regulation is a requirement

water supply. These evaluated variables are used tofor insurance underwriting. Beyond property

develop a community index, which insurers thenand casualty insurance, professional liability

use to establish premium rates for fire insurance ininsurance plays an important role in regulating thethe community.

qualifications and performance of designers andcontractors. The insurance mechanism reinforces
the academic accreditation and public licensing forbuilding professionals.

In an extension of this concept, the ISO hasdeveloped the Building Code EffectivenessGrading Schedule (BCEGS). This methodology
evaluates building department effectiveness in code

The insurance industry is in the business ofcompliance related to natural hazard vulnerability

quantifying risk and estimating premiums thatin the community. The resulting index is used bycover losses and produce profit. This incentive has

insurers to determine premium rates for natural

supported the development of tools for evaluatinghazard insurance.

BOX 2.6 — The French mandatory liability insurance system: a main driver of compliance withbuilding 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 forperiod. Provided the builder has complied with state-of-the-art

builders and manufacturers, thus shortening and simplifying thestandards, referred to as “DTUs,” insurance companies will cover theprocess 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 theentire cost of the repairs. In the meantime, the cause of the damage

The mandatory insurance regime has led to a shift of power andcan be investigated. A 10-year liability is presumed and applies toworkload toward insurance companies. With the exception ofany damage that compromises the integrity of the structure or that

submitting a claim, the process requires no other intervention byaffects essential elements of the building, rendering it unsuitable forthe 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 theComplaints are submitted to courts only if the conflict cannot beowner, 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 haveno contractual clause may depart from it.

a significant influence on the content of building contracts and on thetechniques 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 theuser 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

2.4— Conclusion
The core components and supporting institutions
for a building and land use regulatory framework
are fundamental to disaster and chronic risk
reduction in new and existing settlements. They
constitute the critical link between theoreticalscientific understanding of hazards, engineering
understanding of building performance, and thenecessary change in building practice to reduce
disaster risk.
Investments in hazard mapping and engineering
mitigation measures have no impact on risk
without implementation in building practice. To

1. A legal and administrative framework
2. Inclusive and locally appropriate
code development, maintenance, anddissemination process
3. Effective and efficient compliance support
through plan review, site inspection,and permitting
Initial efforts in Nepal, Madagascar, Pakistan, andTurkey have demonstrated effective means to
support the development of these core components
and to advance the key supporting institutions.
Established building and land use regimes indeveloped countries have demonstrated successin reducing disaster and chronic risk, particularly
in terms of life loss. Once established, the coredate, this link to practice has been missing in mostcomponents and supporting institutions will likely

low- and middle-income countries. Experience

follow a locally defined evolutionary path of growthfrom developed countries has demonstrated thein 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 effectbetween 1 (exemplary commitment to building code enforcement)

in a particular community as well as how the community enforcesand 10. The ISO develops advisory rating credits that apply to ranges

its building codes. Special emphasis is placed on mitigation of lossesof 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-datecodes 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 highand ultimately lowering insurance costs provides an incentive forseismic 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- andMiddle-Income Countries
suggests the need for aggressive supervision

3.1— Drivers of complianceand principles ofregulatory practiceThis chapter presents specificrecommendations for developmentof building regulatory capacity andcompliance for health, safety, anddisaster risk reduction in low- andmiddle-income countries. The chapter
outlines a regulatory reform agenda
to guide those dedicated to disasterrisk reduction.
The agenda for improved regulatory
implementation is prefaced by adiscussion of factors influencing
the compliance with code that isfundamental to risk reduction. The
agenda then presents specific reform
initiatives that address the problems
identified and elaborated in
Chapter 1.

76

and punishment for violations. It requires moreinspections and tougher enforcement. Individuals
are assumed to be rational calculators, only
motivated to comply if the costs of noncompliance

Drivers of regulatory complianceare high and punishment is highly probable.

The goal of building regulation is to reduce healthand safety risk by implementing and obtaining

This view rests on a pessimistic perception ofcompliance with technically competent, sociallyhuman nature, not on research or statisticalacceptable building codes. In reality, however,evidence. This perspective of compliancelocales sometimes draft and adopt regulations

motivation is consistent with neoclassicalwithout considering how likely or feasible

economic theory82 in which agents comply based

compliance will be.

on rational choice to maximize expected utility.

Behavioral drivers of regulatory compliance have

They weigh the costs of compliance against the

been observed in a range of circumstances aspotential gains of noncompliance, minus the costs

diverse as food safety and tax administration. Whatof possible sanctions multiplied by the probability

are these drivers? A widespread view underpinningof detection.83 Consistent experience from otherthe design of regulations is that people comply

regulatory fields suggests that this is not the case.

with rules only if there is a threat of serious
consequences for compliance evasion. This model

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

///

///

Unsurprisingly, studies show that threats ofpunishment are a driver of compliance, but not adecisive one, as dissuasion effects do not always
lead to desired behaviors.84
Compliance driven by threats and deterrence isexpensive. In practice, effective deterrence requires
funding the expansion of costly enforcement

approach is that it helps in developing long-term,
self-sustaining drivers of compliance—and in
reducing the need to increase a more traditionaland costly type of police enforcement.
In the words of Tom Tyler, the key conditions
needed to achieve a procedural justice effectare 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, andlegitimacy. Deterrence is important but can best

without bias; . . . people are treated withbe seen as one of the necessary ingredients ofdignity 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 toopportunity to participate in the situationachieve compliance.

by explaining their perspective andProcedural justice and legitimacy

indicating their views about how problems

foster complianceshould be resolved.”86

///

///

Research has consistently shown that the degree
to which regulated subjects find authorities andrules legitimate is one of the strongest drivers ofcompliance. Provisions for open participation andfairness in the regulatory process, often referred
to as “procedural justice,” are the foundationof legitimacy and the most important driver ofvoluntary compliance.

Designing regulatory processes to///support compliance///Exclusive reliance on aggressive enforcement mayhinder compliance, especially when enforcement
involves abusive arbitrary discretion, lack oftransparency, disrespectful treatment, excessive

Key elements of procedural justice are fairness ofbureaucracy, and refusal to consider appeals.

interpersonal treatment and behavior by authorities

For example, oppressive tax enforcement andthat fosters trust and gives stakeholders a real voiceharassment of taxpayers seem to increase tax

in the process. In practical terms, it means treating

resistance, as does discontent with the delivery ofpeople 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, andshould be based on a balanced approach between

requests are carefully considered. This approach

punitive enforcement and compliance support withdoes not necessarily lead to decision making thatprocedural fairness. In this spirit, the following

corresponds to the regulated subjects’ requests or

sections present specific interventions that candesires, but it demonstrates that their concerns areenhance the legitimacy of the building code processtaken into account to the extent possible.

and the effectiveness of code compliance.

77

78

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

Principles of regulatory practice
The World Bank, the OECD, and the U.K.-based

growing consensus on core principles defines “goodregulatory practice” as follows:

Better Regulation Delivery Office88 agree that• Effectiveness. Effective regulation achieves its

regulators should not simply emphasize police

objectives (in this case, improved health andenforcement, but also provide clear information,
guidance, and education to those who must****safety and reduced disaster and chronic risk).
• Efficiency. Efficient regulation achieves its****

comply. They stress that regulators should

beneficial objectives at the lowest cost in terms

find straightforward ways to collaborate andof building cost, construction time, and long-engage with those they regulate in order to hearterm maintenance. Aggregate benefits, including

their views.

intangibles such as safety and security, must

Building on the premise that procedural fairness
is an important driver of regulatory compliance, a

exceed aggregate costs.
• Transparency, openness, and accountability.
**

In the development of regulations, interested
parties have the opportunity to provide their**

03
Chapterviews to government via an open consultation
process. Transparency in regulatory
implementation means that regulatory
provisions are unambiguous and readily available
to the public. Accountability means that
regulatory policy development, administration,and enforcement are subject to public scrutiny.
Regulators are held accountable for theiractions and mechanisms for dispute resolution
are provided.
• Proportionality. The stringency and compliance****cost of regulatory provisions should be balancedwith the risks and potential losses that they
address.
• Consistency. Coordination and consistency****

between regulatory requirements is essential.
Provisions for various aspects of a building
cannot be in conflict (that is, structural,

3.2— Agenda to strengthen
regulatory implementation
in low- and middleincome countries
Ensuring the safety of new
construction and reducing the risk ofexisting vulnerable settlements
The two primary priorities of this report’s
recommendations are
i. to stop the expansion of disaster and chronicrisk in the siting and construction of new
settlements; andii. to reduce disaster risk in vulnerable existing
settlements.

plumbing, electrical, and energy codes), nor can

New construction with appropriate design can bebuilding regulations contradict the requirements

made disaster-resistant for a small percentage ofrelated to environmental protection orconstruction 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 andmechanisms for new construction can provide theadvance innovation and improvement in both

institutional and technical foundation from whichbuilding practice and regulatory practice.

to address the residual disaster risk in existing

These core principles are not always mutually
reinforcing. For example, an effective regulatory
practice may result in high levels of compliance atthe expense of efficiency. Conversely, an excessive
focus on efficiency and rapid processing of reviews,

vulnerable settlements.
The massive challenge of risk reduction inexisting buildings is critically important. Removal,
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

The balanced pursuit of these principles that

period of time at a feasible cost.

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 theparticipation of all legitimate stakeholders in theregulatory capacity of countries at various stages ofbuilding process.

development.

79

80

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

Seven points of intervention toestablish and expand building
regulatory capacity

6. Clearly identify hazard zones and restrict

1. Establish a sound legislative and administrative

The agenda does not offer a sequential path fordevelopment according to exposure.
7. Advance supporting institutions.
extending regulatory capacity. Reforms described infoundation at the national level.

the agenda can be carried out simultaneously and2. Develop a building code suitable to local social

tailored to the specific level of development of theand 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, andto address all aspects of reform or all issues

permitting at the local level.

related to the larger context of policy andregulatory governance. These interventions

4. To support code compliance, provide advisory

focus on improvements that can be undertaken

services in addition to inspection andincrementally within the realm of building andenforcement.

land use regulation, with an understanding of

5. Take advantage of opportunities foropportunities and constraints of the specificregulatory interventions.

development context.

1

Establish a sound legislative and administrative structure at the national level.

1.1. Establish a legislative foundation for a building
and land use regulatory authority to protect
public health and safety and reduce disasterand chronic risk.

1.2. Adopt a legal framework to support the effective enforcement of building code regulations
at the local level.

1. Establish a sound legislative and1.3. Adopt other critical legislation that contributes
to compliant construction.

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 legislativecode regulations at the local level.

///

///

**

**

foundation for a building and land use regulatory
authority to protect public health and safety andreduce disaster and chronic risk.
**

The legislative foundation of a sound building
regulatory system provides for the promulgationof a comprehensive uniform building code. Beyond

Urban law provides the foundation for effective

the building code, other legislative action isurban 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 participationin planning and regulatory processes at the local

Legislation must typically define liability rules forlevel. National policy can define the role of national

the construction process; professional qualificationand local government agencies to regulate land

and licensing requirements for engineers,

use and construction as well as to implement

architects, and contractors; swift, efficient, andinstruments 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 TechnicalDevelopment 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, therevised 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 tolaw 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 withstandconcrete, and steel construction.

a lateral force of 100 percent of its own weight.

The 1920 regulations also included allowable stress design, quality of

1995materials, and dead and live loads—but not seismic requirements.

The Great Hanshin-Awaji earthquake in 1995 proved that an improved

1923 - 1924
The 1923 Kanto earthquake registered a magnitude of 7.9. It resulted
in significant damage to modern buildings, as well as those using
reinforced concrete. This experience and subsequent analysis led
to an important revision of the Urban Building Law in 1924. These
revisions included the introduction of seismic force considerations
and subsequent advances in seismic design methods.
1949
Post-World War II reconstruction considerably expanded building
regulation with the following legislation:• Construction Trade Law (1949)• Building Standard Law (1950)• Architect Law (1950)
These new laws aimed to safeguard the life, health, and propertyof citizens by providing minimum standards concerning the site,
structure, equipment, and use of buildings; to define the qualificationof engineers who could design buildings and supervise construction
work; to improve the quality of those engaged in construction trades;
and to promote fair construction contracts.
Aside from the legal code documents, the contemporary building
regulatory system of Japan referenced standards developed byqualified government and nongovernment organizations such as• Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport & Tourism (Ministry ofConstruction at that time)building code can make a significant difference in the rate ofbuilding collapses. 97 percent of collapsed buildings had been built
under old building codes, while those that complied with updated
codes represented only 3 percent of the total number of collapsedbuildings. This triggered a nation-wide large scale reinforcement ofexisting buildings. However, it also revealed previously unrecognizedweaknesses in construction, which resulted in further refinementof seismic codes and responses to new developments impacting
building regulation and safety.
1998
The Building Standard Law of Japan was revised in 1998, partially withthe goal of introducing performance-based design regulations. The
law also opened the building inspection and certification process to
private companies, thus supplementing local governments who werepreviously the only competent authorities for conducting this process.
2006
The process for validating structural calculation was considerably
strengthened following cases of code violation in 2005.
Dramatic Reduction of Damage due to Earthquake Ground Motion
Japan’s dynamic incremental improvement of building code provisions
serves as an outstanding example of the value of combining building
research and regulation to meet the challenges of disaster risk
reduction. Continuous improvement of building codes, including
rapid incorporation of lessons learned from disaster experienceand thorough implementation of regulatory provisions, has
supported a dramatic improvement of seismic performance in new
Japanese construction.

• The Architectural Institute of Japan

Source: Mr. Yukiyasu Kamemura, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,• The Japan Concrete Institute guidelines, specifications,

Kaneda, World Bank; Shunsuke Otani, Chiba University.

Transport & Tourism (MLIT); Dr. Tatsuo Narafu, JICA; Keiko Sakoda

and manuals

81

82

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

mechanisms related to building professionals andA legislative foundation should build incrementallythe building and real estate industries.

on other national legislation, which exists as partof a larger ecosystem of institutions that can

As highlighted in the introduction of this report,
building and land use regimes in developed countries
have evolved incrementally over time and createdenable 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
housing finance for lower-income groups, and laws

Recommendation 1.3 Adopt other critical///of critical legislation include legal provisions
for the recognition of digital signatures that

increasingly resilient systems to sustain chronic and///strongly influence regulatory outcomes. Examples**

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

an open,participatory,
consensus-based
process for codedevelopment.

2.3 Develop a

2.2 Adopt a local

comprehensive
building codethat covers thefull range of
relevant construction types
and practices.

building codereferencing anestablishedmodel code while
incorporatingnecessary adaptations to local
context.

2.4 Establish building

2.5 Provide for widematerials testing
and certificationlaboratories thatare accessible tomajor construction zones.

2.6 Create anddissemination ofcode documents
and training forbuilders andowners based oncode documentation.

maintain publicawareness of basic safe construction principles forthe community,
building owners,
and informal
sector builders.

2. Develop a building code suitable toprofessionals, builders, building owners, andlocal social and economic conditions thatbuilding occupants, as well as those with expertisefacilitates 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,

///

///

**

participatory, consensus-based process forcode development.
**

A building code must reflect the social,technological, and economic reality of the country.

• Fit for purpose from a technical perspective.
****

Building code provisions should incorporate thebest knowledge and scientific understanding ofpotential hazard loads and expected structuraland functional performance.

Code documents cannot be simply transported• Tailored to the needs and assimilationfrom a high- to low-income country. Compliancecapability of the country, with specificmust be feasible to the greatest extent possible withreference to its risk profile, the building

locally available materials and skills. An inclusive

culture, capacity of local builders, availability ofand consensus-based process for developing amaterials, educational facilities, equipment, andbuilding 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. Therelevels (national interest group representatives ormust 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,**

as provided for in the particulars of the

discuss the contents of a proposed regulation, andget feedback on existing regulations.

code. Stakeholders must accept the specificimplementation and enforcement mechanisms
as legitimate and fair.

Recommendation 2.2 Adopt a local building

///

**

///

code referencing an established model code
while incorporating necessary adaptations to

Meeting these requirements entails effective
stakeholder consultation and participation. Several

local context.
**

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

Notice and comment (or “public review process”):****

The issue of interest to the regulator, the intent toregulate, or the draft regulation is published andopen for written comments by all interested parties(individuals and organizations) for a given period.
Surveys: Conducted via Internet, phone, or some****other means, surveys target different stakeholder
groups and audiences. They can be used to assessa situation prior to developing a regulation,a thorough analysis and adaptation process carriedout locally. Jamaica adopted this approach byreferencing the International Code Council (ICC)
family of codes.
Recommendation 2.3 Develop a comprehensive

///

///

**

building code that covers the full range of
relevant construction types and practices.
**

Building codes should provide for safer
construction for the full range of prevalentconstruction types—that is, for technicallyto gather views on an issue or on proposedengineered 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 majorof 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 baseshould 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 groupassigned to the project was reviewing five ICC codes and writing theThis approach had tangible advantages for Jamaica. First, it sparedappropriate 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 thecode current with the constant changes in building technology andSource: 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 CodeThe 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 multifacetedbuildings, factories, warehouses, and multistory buildings. For suchprogram 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 thematerials, 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 intypically confined to the maximum span, minimum reinforcing andseismic construction. In the absence of basic regulatory capacity, themember sizes, positioning of earthquake-resisting elements, and

Nepalese code development team chose to set realistic objectives forother such rules. The guidance materials are provided in a form thatthe design of technical standards and guidance materials. For simple,

an experienced construction manager or mason can understandsmall-scale construction, the code proposed technical guidance

while presenting sufficient detail to pass the permit review of theas “rules of thumb,” assuming that simple but essential structuralbuilding department.

details could be checked by nonspecialist staff of municipal building
departments.

Non-engineered construction employing traditional materials andskills:The NBC recognized the full spectrum of current forms of construction

These guidelines are based on the analysis of some 50 typicalthrough 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 existingvernacular materials and skills. Two sets of guidelines have been

capacity on the ground in terms of both construction practice anddeveloped, one dealing with low-strength masonry and anotherregulatory application of compliance checks.

dealing with earthen structures. The guidelines provide simple rules
for improving seismic safety of these structures. Although theseInternational 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, thedesigns 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 theircollision of tectonic plates that gave rise to theown earthen houses.

highest mountains in the world also is capableof generating great earthquakes. Due to thePeru addressed the vulnerability of adobe houses

severe climate and limited availability of building

by including guidelines for their design andmaterials, local construction is particularly

construction in its National Building Code. Thisvulnerable to seismic forces. The Kathmandu Valley

approach illustrates how one country managed

was struck by a major earthquake in 1934. Since thatthe 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
revealed the consequences of population increase
and local construction practices. Organizations
such as the Nepal Society for Earthquake
Technology (NSET) have recognized the serious
exposure and vulnerability of the Kathmandu Valley
and have pursued a range of strategies to reduce
earthquake risk for the people of the area since theearly 1990s.

Recommendation 2.4 Establish building

///

///

**

materials testing and certification laboratories
that are accessible to major construction zones.
**

Uniform and certified performance criteria forbuilding materials are essential for the designand construction of safe buildings. The design ofstructures assumes that materials will perform ina 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 ofconsiderable 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 notfor the development of seismic codes in other vulnerable countries, suchknow 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 thePeru has found it is necessary to complement these codes withdesign of adobe walls.

construction manuals, booklets, and guiding materials, as well as witheducational campaigns carried out through local governments, NGOs, andThe earthquake-resistant code provisions for adobe are addressed tothe 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 thestep represents a remarkable move toward improving public health

Ministry of Economy. In 2014, OGA awarded laboratory accreditationand safety. It also demonstrates that the country understands theto 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, andlaboratories 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 withof 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 importantcertification process must be assured through acomponent of the program involved setting

system of accreditation. Efforts should therefore

up training programs for structural engineers

be made to expand the capacity of nationalin earthquake engineering, particularly for theaccreditation mechanisms and to support actual

strengthening of existing structures. Though theaccreditation of local specialized laboratories withproject concluded impressively in 2014 with 3,630

expertise in building materials testing.

newly trained building practitioners and engineers,

Recommendation 2.5 Provide for wide

///

///

there was little evidence that this training effort**

dissemination of code documents andtraining for builders and owners based on

was a permanent program and part of a longer-term
pre-disaster risk reduction strategy.

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 andsupported training in improved constructionbuilders to comply with code provisions. Support

techniques and code compliance for building

for compliance is the necessary complement totrades, architects, engineers, and owner-builders

inspection and enforcement in order to achieve

in Turkey, Nepal, Pakistan, Madagascar, andbuilding safety.

Indonesia. These efforts were launched in the

The government of Turkey and the World Bank
initiated ISMEP in 2005 to address the vulnerabilityof public buildings in Istanbul and to reduce thedevastation that could occur in the next major
earthquake; the program incorporated a $460

aftermath of disasters, but this type of training
must be expanded and institutionalized for
all new construction, particularly in areas ofurban expansion.

03
Chapter

Recommendation 2.6 Create and maintainquality blocks as well as about the costs andpublic awareness of basic safe construction

benefits of purchasing them.

///

///

**

principles for the community, building owners,
and informal sector builders.

A range of innovative communications solutions**

have also aimed to increase community-wide

Post-disaster experience provides examples ofcommitments to safer building practices. In August

successful and diverse educational and public

2010, the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC)

awareness initiatives primarily designed to improvebegan 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 toof stakeholders and specialized NGOs. Suchinitiatives should be expanded, coordinated, andinstitutionalized in pre-disaster scenarios. They
should aim at demonstrating the benefits of safebuilding practices and creating the buy-in for awider culture of code compliance.

eliminate unsafe building practices. It decided
to disseminate the tenets of safe construction to
the public and to show homeowners, families,
and friends that they too were responsible for
ensuring that building standards were followed. It
achieved this goal by hiring a comedy troupe andExisting tools can be rolled out and adapted tofunding a lively and humorous video in the style oflocal circumstances. For example, the Earthquake

Haitian television, conveying clear instructions inEngineering Research Institute (EERI) and theearthquake-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 tosupport technical training for earthquake-resistantconstruction of small buildings in confined

FIGURE 3.1 — Excerpt from EERI and CCR guidebook on
confined masonry

masonry. This guidebook primarily targets masonsand informal builders in developing countries. It isa leading reference in presenting the topic in simple
and straightforward language and in explaining, ina step-by-step sequence, how to build a one- andtwo-story confined masonry building.91
Other efforts have focused on producers of criticalbuilding materials and creating awareness of thelarger community of homeowners, NGOs, andgovernment 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 eventsfor each certified block maker, in which clientsand neighboring homeowners can learn about theimportance 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

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

applying principles ofprocedural justice andtransparency.

associated with local
building regulatory
reforms.

increased efficiency
and transparencyof building control
procedures.

resolution and appeal
mechanisms.

to construction permits
and inspections.

sistent with the cost of
regulatory services.

support to building
departments at the local
level with technicallyqualified and adequately compensated building
officials.

building permitting andinspections procedures.

from the private sector
for more efficient andeffective compliancechecks mechanisms.

accountability
mechanisms aroundpublic-private partnerships in buildingcode compliancechecks.

3. Strengthen implementation of building

Though transparency in regulatory design andcode through plan review, site inspection, andimplementation is key, it is consistently hard topermitting at the local level.

measure. Doing Business provides some tangible

Recommendation 3.1 Enhance compliancemeasures of how large cities apply principles

///

///

**

by applying principles of procedural justiceof transparency in construction permitting by

and transparency.

comparing the level and quality of disclosure**

A legitimate regulatory process is essential toachieving compliance. The regulatory process
must be transparent and open to public scrutiny.
The rationale for all requirements should bereasonable and presented publicly. The healthand safety consequences of regulatory provisions
should be presented to the public throughcommunity meetings along with information andfor specific regulatory requirements andadministrative fees.
Recommendation 3.2 Communicate changes

///

///

**

associated with local building regulatory reforms.
**

Regulatory reform initiatives should place strategic
communications at the heart of the process. Twoway communication with stakeholders will enhancecommunications campaigns.

inclusion and the legitimacy of the reform.

Doing Business 201593 suggests that easier accessRegulatory practitioners often assume that once

to regulatory information, such as permitting fee

audiences understand the benefits of reforms, theyschedules, is associated with greater regulatory

will support them, but experience has shown that

efficiency, lower compliance costs, and bettersimply educating audiences and disseminating

regulatory quality for businesses. This finding

information is not enough to change behavior

seems to confirm that more transparency andor to get reforms accepted. Because the reforms

better-quality government tend to go hand-in-

aim to transform processes, responsibilities, andhand.94

behaviors within municipalities, changes will likely

03
Chapter

BOX 3.6 — Peru and Nicaragua: Simplification of building permitting procedures throughcommunication (2006-2009)
Like many countries in Latin America, Peru and Nicaragua haveand associated messages to local building authorities, building

been burdened with complicated and costly municipal regulations

practitioners, and other partners. After Nicaragua had concluded itsthat impact operating licenses and construction permits. According

three municipal pilots in Granada, Masaya, and Leon, complianceto Doing Business 2005, in that year it took 189 days to obtaincosts of operating and construction permits were reduced by 30

a construction permit in Nicaragua. Inefficient processes at thepercent on average; business formalization increased sevenfold.

municipal level contributed to high transaction costs for thosesubjected 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 theapproach was crucial to putting administrative simplification on thevulnerability 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 byThrough a coordinated and documented communications strategy,

the International Finance Corporation (IFC), built strong support forthe municipalities effectively harnessed public-private partnerships toreform by engaging stakeholders and creating a sense of ownershipbuild support and increase visibility in the press. They also used thesein municipalities. Each project employed an overarching strategic

partnerships to build a national umbrella campaign message, localize

communications approach, anchored in a national plan that prioritizedreform messages, deliver those messages to the right places, andcommunications 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

Regulatory quality

1.0

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 informationindex, 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 regulatoryinterest in maintaining the status quo for rent-

capacity requires technically qualified building

seeking purposes. Strategic communications canofficials. These officials carry out plan reviews

help to build the coalitions and means of pressure

and site inspections as required for all newneeded to effectively address forces that hold backconstruction, and they must be compensated atnecessary reforms.

a level that both meets their qualifications andRecommendation 3.3 Establish conflict

///

**

///

resolution and appeal mechanisms.

reduces vulnerability to corruption. They mustalso be provided with necessary support, including
equipment and transportation.

**

An effective mechanism for appeals and conflict
resolution is essential for providing procedural
fairness, transparency, and a level playing field. A
quasi-judicial body involving both local government
and private building professionals should beestablished to deal with disputes between building
professionals and permitting authorities on mattersrelated to the interpretation of the building code or
sufficiency of compliance.

Building officials must demonstrate technicalcompetency in areas of review and inspection
for which they have responsibility. These include
structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing
systems, as well as fire and natural hazards.
Building officials should have professional
qualification in engineering or architecture,or comparable building industry experience.
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, thesebody should be established to deal with appeals

criteria can be applicable in low- and middle-

from practitioners concerning registration andincome countries.

certification. To be effective, the appeal system
must ensure technical competence and procedural
safeguards and must be managed transparently.

The staffing of building departments must becommensurate with the workload presented
by construction activity in the authority having

Recommendation 3.4 Provide funding andjurisdiction. The building department must be

support to building departments at the local

provided necessary equipment and logisticallevel 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 andand industry professionals should participate in specialized conflictare appointed from both the regulatory and industry sectors. BCC

resolution bodies, and their views should carry the same weight asdecisions 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 andconsumer protection role, they should be paid
based on a prescribed remuneration floor (thelowest 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
responsibilities are discharged in a manner that iscommensurate with the real cost of performing thestatutory function.95

and it fully engaged building code officials toensure their buy-in to the greatest extent possible.
Also impacted were other preapproval authorities
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

///

///

**

**

Simplification efforts should be carried out atthe local municipal level and first target the corebuilding permitting and inspections functions.

Aviation Authority. Other simplification reforms
supported by the project included• 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

For deeper efficiency gains, the scope of
simplification efforts should be expanded toinclude processes linked to noncore buildingcode preapproval requirements from otherauthorities (such as land use planning, utilities,
and environmental clearances). For example,

public agency.
• Suggesting and creating risk thresholds toeliminate any preapproval requirements forsmall and low-rise buildings.
• Agreeing on maximum time limits for theissuance of approvals.96

in 2006, a three-year simplification reform of

Simplifying administrative procedures lowers

building permits and inspections was supported

transaction costs and increases legitimacy andby the World Bank Group in Egypt. This reform

regulatory compliance. Building regulatory

targeted core municipal construction permitting

reforms initiated in Ontario in 2001 relied onprocesses and 18 related administrative approvals

the two-pronged approach of improving skills

from other public agencies in the municipality ofand accountability of building practitioners andAlexandria. 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 werepercent 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 predefined1999 earthquake; in Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru in the past 10 years;“target process” considered consistent with best practices andand more recently in Kenya and Rwanda (respectively in 2011 andwith 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 offor certain types of buildings and occupancy.

all the steps and procedures, the average duration of eachprocedure, the related fees, the documentation required, and3.

the specific legislation or regulation prescribing this step

Testing: This stage formalizes new processes and trains buildingcode officials and inspectors.

or procedure.
4.
2.

Automating the new process: This stage establishes online

Re-engineering of procedures: Working groups analyze thesubmission 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 accountresidential fire loss, and a reduction of 15 percent in

the availability and reliability of the local ICT

civilian injuries.

infrastructure when designing online permitting

97

Recommendation 3.6 Apply ICT to support

///

///

solutions. The legal and regulatory infrastructure**

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**

Electronic solutions or e-construction permit
systems and applications today encompass aand digital signatures can hamper efforts toautomate permitting systems.

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
construction project cycle online.
Efforts to improve work-flow management andintroduce online permitting systems must be
expanded. These efforts should be undertaken only
after simplifying reengineering and administrative
processes. These reforms must be developed

demand of online services. Building agencies canchoose to first develop their back-office functions
before developing a full range of online services.
With support from the World Bank Group,
Kenya and Rwanda began ICT reforms related toe-construction permitting in 2011. These reforms

together with a commitment from planning andhave 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 thewith a relatively wide range of solutions from thecapacity to effectively utilize new technology.

start.

03
Chapter

The new automated system launched in September

significantly streamlined and third-party review is2011 by the City Council of Nairobi (CCN) was

not required for lower-risk groups.

developed in less than two years and included
training of the CCN staff and building code
officials. The training reduced time of approval by
80 percent and transaction costs for the private
sector by 60 percent. The City Council surpassed
its revenue targets after it registered a 300 percent
increase in permit applications.98

Between 2006 and 2014, 88 countries establishedfast-track building permitting procedures for verysmall commercial buildings.99 A closer look at theparticular circumstances around these measuressuggests that the reforms have often been narrowin scope and not always driven by risk factors.
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
and inspections bring opportunities to streamline
procedures and focus scarce implementation
resources on buildings that matter most from amanagement.
Consistent with good practice, the United
Kingdom has recently started to implement a

public health and safety perspective.

risk-based approach to home building and home

Building applications should be categorized into

building agencies more effectively, it ended thedifferent 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

improvements. To use the resources of local

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 technicalcapacity of Istanbul, Turkey, in addressing seismic risks.

• Training on new processes of over 100 people internally, inthe municipality.

Component C of the project had a budget of about $5 million andfocused on improving building code enforcement in two pilot districtsof Istanbul. A thorough reengineering and automation of construction
permits and inspections services was carried out from January 2007
to December 2012, involving the building authority of the Municipalityof Bağcilar.
• The scope envisaged for the shift from paper to online processes
was particularly ambitious, as it involved• Updating and digitizing a comprehensive database with detailed
spatial data at the individual building level.

• Developing an online system for land use approvals andconstruction permits.
• Creating a dedicated call center to handle client requests.
Supported by a preexisting law promulgated in 2004 and recognizing
e-signature, Bağcilar became the first municipality in Turkey todevelop online building permit services. As of October 2012, theproject had reduced necessary documentation by 35 percent and had
reduced time for issuing a building permit by 55 percent.
Source: Adapted from Reis 2015.

• Synchronizing GIS and MIS data into a single database at themunicipality 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 buildingin porous oversight on safety, higher costs for all involved, and humanpermit 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 radicallypermit approvals from the relevant county departments. The lack oftransformed the management of construction permitting andadherence to proper procedures and building regulations increases

inspections in Nairobi after 2011. These key functions included

the risk of collapsing.
The e-CP system was developed with the support of the World Bank
Group’s Investment Climate Program to help speed and simplify
building permit approval processes, improve administrative efficiency
for construction permits and promote best practices within theconstruction industry. The e-CP system allows inspection officers
to track all developments and record progress of the construction
remotely by inputting information through tablets. The new system• Online registration of building professionals andproperty developers.
• Online submission of building plans.
• Workflow management, specifically concurrent review
and evaluation.
• 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 theirapplication in real time through a web-and SMS-based tracking andnotification system. Architects in Nairobi County acknowledge that
ad hoc and informal charges previously imposed on them, such as
unofficial fees to expedite approval processes, have been reduced• Client interactions through SMS/email notifications andonline tracking.
• Management reporting and oversight.
Source: IFC

03
Chapterrisk-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 theydetailing 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 theOECD average of 1.7 percent.101

particular risk factors on the ground.100

To facilitate compliance, building regulatory fees
and collection processes should be based on the

Recommendation 3.8 Apply fee levels

///

///

**

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 reasonablelevel that ensures the financial self-sustainability ofbuilding code municipal services. Not only should

TABLE 3.1— Good practice in setting and administering building fees
Practice

BackgroundFees should include the costs associated with the review of

Establish fees levels based on cost recovery for building control
services

plans and any inspections along with overhead costs. This is
the approach followed by New Zealand, where building consent
agencies charge fees for issuing a building code compliancecertificate when the building is completed.
Low municipal tax resources often create an incentive to turnbuilding permit fees into proxies for tax revenues. If deficiencies

Ensure that building control fees do not fulfill a tax purposein the property tax system require collecting funds at thetime of construction, the tax portion of the building permit fee
should be clearly delineated in the interest of transparency andaccountability.
For small buildings, setting a small, fixed fee is consideredgood practice. Minimum fees are necessary because the cost

Charge small, fixed fees for small projects presenting no risk topublic health and safetyof providing services is not directly proportional to the area or
cost of the building; a minimum charge is therefore needed tocover 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

Publicize fee schedules

schedules for permits and inspections should be publicized andmade available on the local authorities’ website and other meansof communications.

95

96

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

Recommendation 3.9 Leverage resources from

An encouraging outcome emerged from a reformthe 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
and inspections should be pursued throughcollaboration with the private sector, following
particular institutional and organizationalarrangements consistent with local needs andopportunities. Major reforms in building code
implementation initiated in the past 20 years havesought to take advantage of resources and expertiseavailable in the private sector. These reforms
were driven by the greater complexity of building
technologies and increased pressure on scarcemunicipal human resources. Collaboration withthe private sector has been a source of innovationin building code implementation procedures,construction. In 1995, the Planning Office began touse private professionals to carry out plan reviews
and issue building permits. As a result, the averagetime needed to process construction permits
plummeted, from a daunting three years in 1995 tojust 33 days in 2012. The use of private engineeringexpertise could possibly be extended to building
inspections, which are still the responsibility of
local “prefects”—individuals who lack the technicaland financial resources to conduct professional
inspections yet operate within the constraints of ademanding seismic environment.
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 assistancecan 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 compliancesupported by robust safeguards to ensure thatwith 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 bycollaborating with the private sector
Drawing from the experience of European Union countries, and inand 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 theand building code requirements. Municipal authorities were no

indicator for “dealing with construction permits” in Doing Businesslonger 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 decree
establishing
curadores

Selection of first
curadores

Establishment ofcertification systemfor curadoresFirst legislation on
liability regimes for
curadores

Introduction of arisk-based system forconstruction permits

Improvement of stateoversight mechanism
on private engineers

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 ofbuilding controls should always be supported byinterests are monitored and minimized.

strong safeguards, usually in the form of more

A comprehensive study conducted by the Delft
University of Technology analyzed the resultsof involving private sector expertise in building
regulatory enforcement in Australia, Canada,
and New Zealand.102 Tracing roughly 20 yearsof building code implementation in these three
countries, the study concludes that regimes relying
on independent, private, third-party enforcement

stringent qualification requirements for building
professionals, as well as robust disciplinary andoversight mechanisms. Both countries are now inthe process of building these checks and balances
to offer more mature and robust building code
enforcement systems. In Colombia, the 1995
reform allowed private sector practitioners to issue
permits104 in order to address serious backlogs andinefficiencies in the building planning agencies.

develop greater inspectoral depth, which leads inThis reform was followed over the subsequent

turn to “better regulatory goal achievement.”

15 years with the incremental development of

The same study also warns that introducing
building controls systems based on private sector

qualification requirements for this new category ofprivate professionals.

third-party mechanisms holds the potential of aloss in “equity and accountability In 1994, the stateof Victoria in Australia introduced a competitive
system of building controls that allowed privatebuilding surveyors as well as municipal councils toissue building permits. Those in the constructionindustry reported anecdotal cases of private
surveyors yielding to commercial pressure byendorsing substandard building practices. The
state of Victoria responded by improving oversightmechanisms 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
enforcement.

4.2 Use regulatory capacity to coordinate training for building trades, architects

and engineers, and owner-builders on improved construction techniques andcode 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 thanpolice enforcement.

should be institutionalized and extended beyond
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 technicalto coordinate training for building trades,

advice and guidance for improved disasterarchitects and engineers, and owner-builders

resilience. This approach should aim to increaseon improved construction techniques andcompliance with minimum standards of safety incode compliance.

certain communities and in relation to specificbuilding practices and local hazards, thus helping
to reduce risk. As illustrated in the Central Javacase study (Box 3.12), this approach requires astrong effort in communications by promoting andfacilitating an advisory role for building inspectors.
It seeks to change behaviors by building trust andconfidence, as opposed to rely only on punitive**

As part of broader building code compliancestrategies, building authorities should use theirinfluence to partner with the private sector andensure that all stakeholder groups involved inconstruction have ongoing access to training.
Training artisans, masons, craftsmen, andconstruction workers in hazard-resistant methods

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 anddonor-funded post-disaster reconstructionbuilding permitting process to improve the quality

programs. All too often, such innovations inand seismic resilience of 330,000 reconstructedtraining 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-disasteron risk reduction then begins to drop overreconstruction—conditional on their house passing

time. Building on the cutting-edge experience ofpredefined inspections at three different stages ofreconstruction programs, public authorities should

construction. Interestingly, before the earthquake,

institutionalize effective trainings, beginning withthe prevalent form of housing in the area had

training in non-engineered and traditional forms of

been informal and had escaped any measure ofconstruction 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 coastIn the end, nearly 330,000 houses were reconstructed under theof 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 tolevel 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 inincluded recommendations for structural safety in housingdeveloping 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 tranchesof 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 ofprovided assistance through the local government building code

non-engineered housing: by using the formal permitting process toadministration system. One of JICA’s major contributions, madeintroduce key engineering concepts like structural resistance, thein partnership with Gadjah Mada University, was to develop “Keyprogram reduced risks in a traditionally vulnerable building type.

Requirements,” which consisted of a package of simple technicalThis 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 technicalthrough education, guidance, and compliance support, rather thanguidance on critical structural elements that contribute to greater

relying solely on coercive enforcement.

resilience in traditional non-engineered construction. Shortly after the
Key Requirements were developed, compliance with them became arequirement for the government cash transfer program.

To reduce losses in future disasters, the most important challenge isto ensure that the process for technical support and inspection canbe institutionalized and sustained over the longer term. This will take

JICA supported the provincial government in extending training on thetime 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 andprograms. 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 thethe building sector.

basis for a potentially permanent increase in quality and safety
management for housing in the region.

Source: Dr. Tatsuo Narafu, JICA; Keiko Sakoda Kaneda, World Bank.

99

100

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

5

Take advantage of opportunities for regulatory interventions.

5.1 Prioritize by building function and exposure
to hazards.

5.2 Utilize public building programs as points ofentry for the regulatory process.

5.3 Exploit disaster experience to advance
regulatory policy.

5. Take advantage of opportunities forsecondary hazards, such as explosion or toxic

regulatory interventions.

release (for example, industrial, chemical, or fuelRecommendation 5.1 Prioritize by building

///

///

storage). Structures critical to disaster response**

function and exposure to hazards.

include medical facilities (hospitals and clinics),**

response capabilities (police and fire stations andApplication of regulatory resources should seek toemergency management facilities), and othermaximize risk reduction, based on the importancepublic services buildings. Elevated importanceof a structure’s function or occupancy as well asfactors also apply to buildings that houseits hazard exposure. The priority of function isvulnerable or immobile populations (nursing

typically represented by an importance factor,

homes, elderly housing, and prisons) and places

which increases the requirement for structuralof public assembly where exposed populations areresistance to reduce the probability of failure

concentrated. Schools have special importanceduring a hazard event.

because of the social priority placed on the safety

Elevated importance factors apply to buildingsof children.

whose functions are critically important

The special importance of schools and hospitals

immediately following hazard impact, as wellhas been recognized in targeted initiatives by manyas to structures that house functions that poseorganizations. 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-resistantin 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 overconcluded, 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 andtraining. 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 criticalinspectors. These inspectors not only carried out inspections but alsomass 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 toto 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
Chapterthe Organization of American States, UNISDR, andRecommendation 5.2 Utilize public

///

///

**

GFDRR have all supported safe school constructionbuilding programs as points of entry for theand retrofit of existing school buildings. The

regulatory process.

Pan American Health Organization and UNISDR
have addressed the disaster resilience of hospitalbuildings. These occupancy-targeted initiatives
are important but should be developed as thestarting point for broad, comprehensive regulatory
initiatives to reduce disaster risk for the entire
building stock.

**

For any new building regulatory program,
authorities need to identify feasible points of entry
or starting points for regulatory intervention. For
example, where the public gives building occupancy
high priority, it becomes more feasible to initiate
the regulatory function. The organizational
management and funding of construction is also

In prioritizing buildings, authorities should alsoa 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 overFunctional importance and hazard exposure

the opportunity to demonstrate safe construction

should not only be incorporated in the designmaterials and techniques. The tangible example

requirements of the code, they should also beof school construction can be used to instructreflected in the diligence of review and inspection

students, faculty, and the community on thepracticed by the regulatory authority.

methods and benefits of safer construction.

projects. These rudimentary capabilities provide

101

102

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

Similarly, in the case of health facilities, a

Recommendation 5.3 Exploit disaster///

construction management capacity and budgetarycontrol for construction quality can provide thestarting point for a demonstration of the building
regulatory framework. Once the regulatory
process is introduced through these formal sector
building types, the concepts of safe construction
standards, compliance assistance, and inspection
should be expanded to serve other elements of thebuilt environment.

///

**

experience to advance regulatory policy.
**

Timing is a major consideration in identifying afeasible point of entry for a building regulatory
process. Though life-saving and relief activities
must be the focus in the immediate aftermathof a disaster, the post-disaster period offers avaluable opportunity for introducing or reforming
a building regulatory process. Disaster damage
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 andoffers an excellent opportunity both forschoolchildren following a damaging earthquake inimplementing improved building standards andLong Beach in 1933. From that starting point, thefor institutionalizing building regulatory systems

state has developed one of the most comprehensive

to guide long-term resilient development in theand effective building regulatory systems in the

future.

world.

105

6

Clearly identify hazard zones and restrict development according to exposure.

6.1 Execute hazard

mapping forpotential urban
extension areas
in advance of
unregulated
development
to direct new
settlement tosafer sites.

6.2 Reference

hazard zones
in building
codes withemphasis on
added structuralrequirements.

6.3 Execute hazard

mapping for existing settlement
areas to establish priorities
for retrofit andrelocation.

6.4 Provide

infrastructure
in safer areas
to direct urban
expansion andland use.

6. Clearly identify hazard zones and restrict
development according to exposure.

6.5 Make public

comprehensive
information on
hazard exposureand the rationale
for land use
management.

6.6 Institutealternative uses
to occupy hazard
zones.

strengthening for resilience. Where possible, urban
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 usesof 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 mappingof disaster risk reduction. Safe location of newshould form an integral part of urban masterdevelopments 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 thatlandslide, 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

Recommendation 6.2 Reference hazard///

anticipated loads.

**

///

zones in building codes with emphasis on added
structural requirements.
**

To avoid the economic consequences of overdesign
and the safety consequences of underdesign, hazard

Land use management is a fundamental toolmaps must be directly referenced in the building

for reducing disaster risk. Historical data andcode. Compliance with hazard zone-related

probabilistic modeling techniques make possible

requirements must be assured through plan review

the development of hazard mapping, whichand 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 andseismic hazard knowledge
A CAPRA technical assistance project to update and improve the

The project’s main objectives were toexisting seismic hazard information in Peru, a country with a historyof seismic activity, was carried out from late 2010 until March 2012.
This helped to support the Peruvian national and local governments
in getting better access to seismic hazard information as an input
for any disaster risk reduction measures and activities (related, forexample, to loss of life, infrastructure, buildings, and basic services).
Seismic hazard information can be represented as maps and provide• Prepare national level seismic information and maps for regulatory
purposes, and• Contribute to reducing risk resulting from inadequate design orconstruction. The results were incorporated into the update of theseismic design standard led by a governmental special committee.

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 schooland 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

The Peru probabilistic seismic hazard assessment exercise was
the product of a technical assistance project using the CAPRA
probabilistic risk assessment software platform. The project wassponsored and technically supported by the World Bank, funded

this information through continuous research and additional data.
However, the benefit of hazard maps and the critical information thatthey provide will only be realized if building codes are adequately
enforced in Peru.

by the Spanish Fund for Latin America and the Caribbean, andSource: Geophysical Institute of Peru; World Bank CAPRA Technicalimplemented by the Geophysical Institute of Peru. CAPRA is a free

Assistance Project 2012and 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 tothe public
One mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is to develop andScience provides the information that decision makers need toapply hazard science to help protect the safety and security of thedetermine 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, thesignificant, and each year more people and infrastructure are at

USGS is uniquely positioned to broaden society’s perspective withrisk. 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, andmagnetic 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 otheron the above-listed natural hazards to guide public and private

fields. It engages cooperatively with numerous agencies, researchdecision 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 mappingand critical community functions in existingfor existing settlement areas to establish

settlements must be identified and dealt with on apriorities 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 andhighly exposed and vulnerable areas. Definedland use.

hazard zones in existing settlements provide
the basis for allocating resources for eventual
relocation, retrofit, or increased vigilance forresponse and relief planning.
Even in rapidly expanding urban areas, the greatest
concentration of risk is likely to reside in previously**

When infrastructure services—such as water,
sanitation, electric power, and communications—are provided to existing slums or informal
settlements, the cost has been two to three times
as much as similar service provided at the outset ofdevelopment.106

unregulated existing areas. While this residual risk

Preference for development in safer areas

must be addressed, at present it is most importantcan effectively be led by rational and efficientand most cost-effective to stop the expansion of

installation of infrastructure service systems.

risk in areas of new development. The financial andThis requires collective community organizationsocial costs of demolition and resettlement, or evenand 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 ofin building houses on individual plots. This type

extreme exposure, extreme structural vulnerability,of construction can often be more efficiently

03
Chaptercarried 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 technicalsupport and inspection to assure health, safety, anddisaster resilience.

///

**

uses to occupy hazard zones.
**

Urban land is at a premium in all parts of the

Recommendation 6.5 Make public///

Recommendation 6.6 Institute alternative

///

///

**

comprehensive information on hazard exposureand the rationale for land use management.
**

world. The advantages of proximity to services
and employment create a powerful force fordevelopment of convenient but unsafe sites. In

Public understanding of hazard exposure isorder to preclude informal land invasions or

fundamental to informed choice. Information onmarket pressures for development, alternative

historical hazard impacts and scientific projectionuses for hazardous areas should be defined andof future hazard impacts must be shared in a form

implemented. Hazardous sites may be developedthat supports informed public and individualfor 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 newof 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,
options for permissible land use are very limited. In other parts of thefloodplain, most uses are allowed, but structures must be elevated or
flood-proofed to maintain public safety and minimize risk of property
damage during a flood. Communities will be regulated according tozones, which include low-density residential, high-density residential,commercial, industrial, and open space. A community can specify theallowable uses in each zone.
Allowable floodway uses****

• Open space uses and limited grading and earth moving may
be permitted if they do not create an obstruction or cause any
increase in the flood levels. Uses such as gardens, farming, parks,
trails, or golf courses may be allowed depending on zoning district.
• New structures, additions to existing structures, and substantial
improvements to existing structures are prohibited.
• Construction should be outside the floodplain, with the lowest• No placement of fill is permitted in the floodway.
• Top (that is, walking surface) of the lowest floor (including
basement or crawl space) is at or above the RFPE.
• Fill outside the floodway is at 100-year flood elevation plus
floodway stage increase, or higher, extending at least 15 feethorizontally from all sides of the structure.
• An “as built” survey is submitted to the zoning authority to verify
that the development was built at the permitted elevation.
• All local ordinance requirements, including setback requirements(that is, from lot lines and for shore land management or wild andscenic rivers ordinances), are met. Many communities also requirethat the access (driveway and access roads) elevation is no lower
than 2 feet below the RFPE.
Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Ecological &Water Resources.

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 sothat its walking surface is at the RFPE or higher.

105

106

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

77

Advance supporting institutions.

7.1 Improve regimes of

7.2 Increase the account-tenure security tocreate greater incentive
for compliance.

ability of building
professionals by
increasing liability
regimes backed byinsurance mechanisms.

7.3 Improve the capability

and accountability of
regulatory agencies
through quality control
measures.

7. Advance supporting institutions.
An effective agenda to improve regulatory
implementation in low- and middle-income
countries should not focus only on core land
use and building code system elements. Thereare contributing institutions and regulatory
instruments, all part of a larger regulatory
ecosystem, that play an equally important role inachieving compliant and safe construction. Whilethe list of such institutions and instruments is
potentially long, the impact of proactive reforms
in the following areas is particularly worth noting:security of tenure, liability mechanisms for building
professionals, accountability instruments forplanning and building departments, and housing

7.4 Leverage housing

7.5 Mobilize market

finance mechanisms tospur investment into
safer housing.

demand for safer
buildings.

consistently shows that possession of greater
tenure security results in greater investments in the
structure, as well as improved social outcomes.107
No single prescriptive path leads to secured land
tenure and property rights, but a wide range ofpolicy and regulatory instruments can help addresscertain challenges and be adapted to meet local
conditions. UN-Habitat regularly advocates theuse of various alternative tenure options that canbe adapted to circumstances in any area. It also
promotes a cost-effective incremental approach tostrengthening tenure rights, so that authorities canbuild capacity for more comprehensive and locallysensitive long-term options (Box 3.17).

finance mechanisms (with a focus on those

Furthermore, Peru’s experience from 1996 totargeting lower-income groups). The selection

2004 demonstrates that land titling programs canand 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 andprefer the social cohesion that customary tenuredevelopment priorities.

arrangements can provide, or the mobility offered

Recommendation 7.1 Improve regimes of

///

///

**

tenure security to create greater incentive
for compliance.
**

The stronger land security is, the easier it isfor households to invest in land, safer building

by renting, as long as they enjoy adequate security
and land protection.109
Recommendation 7.2 Increase the

///

///

**

accountability of building professionals
by increasing liability regimes backed byinsurance 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 compliancemechanisms into a strong driver of regulatory

therefore depends on a larger commitment to land

compliance. This opportunity is more relevant topolicy 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 orbased leases for a designated period, with options for extension.

customary rights in urban, peri-urban, and rural areas. Thiscan 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 inurban and peri-urban areas and identify any that need to be

5.

Households seeking individual titles obtain the agreement of therelocated. 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 tomedium-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, throughover time. In France, for example, private liability

public legislation, that their members carryinsurance and insurance carried by building

insurance. Where conditions allow it, otherprofessionals and private inspectors are by far thecountries require a broad range of building

main drivers promoting compliance with building

professionals to carry liability insurance. Victoria,

standards.110

Australia, requires designers, draftspersons,

Assuming that market conditions are appropriate,
meaning that there is a sufficiently establishedinsurance industry, government authorities should
consider mandating building professionals tocarry a reasonable level of liability insurance. Thisand contractors to carry liability insurance, andit enforces this requirement through a builder
registration system.
Recommendation 7.3 Improve the capability

///

///

**

and accountability of regulatory agencies throughwould cover most claims likely to be encounteredquality control measures.

by designers, contractors, or public or private

The initiative to establish and maintain theinspection agencies.
For policy makers, a particular challenge associatedwith the introduction of liability insurance is to
avoid creating yet another barrier to entry forsmaller and new entrants into the building design**

accountability of local building regulatory
agencies should be based on formal systems of
quality management and accreditation. National
authorities should take the lead in mandating local
building authorities to become accredited.

or construction businesses. At the same time, it is

Well-established systems of accreditation forimportant to avoid instances of unfair competition,building regulatory agencies are in place in high-where responsible firms that obtain insuranceincome countries (for example, the International

are competing against firms that are unable

Accreditation Service [IAS] of the ICC in theor unwilling to obtain insurance (and that canU.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 ofand staff certification offer operational models

municipal building consent authorities as partand functioning principles relevant to municipalof its Building Act of 2004. The accreditationbuilding control activities in developing countries,

and registration scheme in New Zealand waswith appropriate adaptation.

established to promote consistent, standardized,

The IAS provides independent third-party
recognition that a municipal building department iscompetent to carry out specific code enforcement
activities. The IAS is a nonprofit, public-benefit

and good-quality practices in building control
and to ensure better technical capabilities andresourcing, including adequate processes to
respond to disaster risks.

corporation that has been providing accreditation

In July 2013, in an act that illustrates both theservices since 1975. It is a subsidiary of the ICC, acreation of accountability and the consequences

professional membership association that develops
the construction codes and standards used bymost municipalities within the United States. Its
accreditation criteria reflect a strong commitment
to maintaining transparency and procedural justice,
an appropriate quality of service delivery, and acapacity to respond to natural hazards impacting
construction (see Box 3.18).

attached to lower standards of institutionaldelivery, International Accreditation New Zealand(IANZ) withdrew its accreditation of the Building
Consent Authority (BCA) of Christchurch. The
grounds were deteriorating quality and speed of thebuilding’s consent processes as well as insufficienttransparency. The BCA eventually regained its
status at the end of 2014 after implementing
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, thecontrols (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 performingthat 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 administrativerequirements 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, orof community outreach activities and disclosure of importantother 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****

Quality of service delivery: A system must be in place to regularly****

when they identify damaged buildings and conduct safety inspections
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 andrange 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 theWider access to housing is typically correlated

structural risks of incremental construction) andwith increased economic growth and urban

the monitoring of construction quality (to ensure

development. However, in most emerging

code compliance) serves to protect both the healtheconomies, 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 tothat the structure to be financed conforms to code

finance moderate- or median-income households.

and zoning requirements. In the case of financial

In countries with underdeveloped housing financesystems, buildings are constructed incrementallyand informally with low-quality building materials
and thus do not comply with planning and buildingcode regulations.112 Under such circumstances, safe
code-compliant construction is difficult to attain.

assistance for reconstruction following the 2005
earthquake in Pakistan, financing was provided
in increments conditioned on passing inspection
at each of the stages of the construction process.
The first tranche of funding was provided on
approval of the site, the second on the completion
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 ofapproval 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, publicauthorities should address housing finance needsof low-income and underserved households.
As highlighted earlier, low-income groups are
consistently more exposed to chronic and natural
hazard-related risks.
Authorities should try in particular to support
sustainable housing microfinance (HMF) in lowand middle-income countries. HMF portfolios
remain small in proportion to GDP or bank assets,
but have managed to reach a relatively large scalein places like Peru. Here, more than 1.2 million
households have benefited from HMF within theThis strict control was justified to protect thecollateral, not to mention the well-being of thebuilding occupant in specific conditions of thesubsidized reconstruction program.
Where mortgage financing is offered in a
nondisaster situation, a similar requirement
for code compliance can be exercised with thecooperation of the local regulatory authority. Suchcontrol clearly benefits both the owner/occupant
and the lender in terms of protecting the value ofthe loan. In sophisticated construction markets,
lenders can require the participation of insurers

framework of title formalization programs in theto guarantee the value of the loan. In this case,past few years. Peru shows that, under the rightthe feasibility of underwriting is facilitated by theconditions, HMF can effectively address the needs

competence of the local regulatory authority inof poor households and become a lucrative line

assuring both code compliance and reasonably

of business for banks. In addition, because thesepredictable building performance under prescribedhouseholds have also achieved security in theirloads.

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 toindependently. The presence of a competentmortgage financing. Public incentives for measuresregulatory 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

///

///

**

**

In a range of developed countries, building codes
are recognized as a minimum acceptable standardof construction. Despite the fact that this minimum
standard can provide the basis for calculating
insurance premiums, it does not necessarily

resource use efficiency. However, sustainability also
refers to disaster resilience. Leading international
green building standards such as LEED, BREEAM,
and Green Star are now starting to incorporate
elements and credits relating to climate resilience.

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 haveand the Institute for Business and Home Safety

been developed for several aspects of building“Fortified Home” program in the U.S. Bothperformance, including energy efficiency andinitiatives are based on the market value of certified

disaster resilience.

added safety. The market approach leads to safer

In response to market demand, the private sector
and NGOs have developed independent programs

building products through profit-oriented response
to informed consumer demand.

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 andbeyond those provided for by codes. The success

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale

of independent building certification programs

Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), is now working with asuch as LEED and Fortified Homes (Institute forwide 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 theaims 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 safetyvalue.

and resilience. When the consumer recognizes thevalue of resilient construction and is willing to pay
a premium for such quality, the market becomes aneffective driver of safe construction.

As noted earlier in this chapter, there is a goodargument to introduce noncoercive instruments
into compliance strategies. About 15-20 years’
experience in green building rating systems shows

Voluntary choice of higher levels of buildingthat 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 areexample, 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” andnow 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 orCompliance with “A” and “B” levels is encouraged

zoning permits, expedited plan reviews, increased

through an incentive program allowing a local bankfloor area ratio (FAR) and density bonuses, andto provide lower interest rates on mortgages andpermitted mixed-use development. The same

construction loans.113

range of cost-effective instruments could support

As dedicated building resilience standards

construction.

a larger market take-up of standards for resilientand certification systems make their way intodeveloping 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 ofvoluntary standards

Key Measures

Benefits to Investor

PERMITTING PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS
Expedited planning, zoning, or land
use approval

Fast-track process for planning & zoning approvals
can save substantial time and money to developers,
speed up sales and strengthen cash flow.

Expedited plan review ofbuilding permit

Will provide the same benefit as above.

Streamlined & expeditedbuilding inspections

This measure can take the form of a predetermined
time limit (e.g. 48 hours) for the building control authority to conduct compliance checks (conformity tooriginal building plans and compliance with buildingcode 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 anddensity bonuses

Density bonuses grant additional height or “floor area
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
development

This measure would allow exceptions in theenforcement of land use and zoning requirements
and building types authorized in specific locations.

111

112

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

03
Chapter

3.3— Conclusion

administrative resources in low- and middleincome countries, particularly at the local level.

Building and land use regulation has proven toThough these recommendations focus on the

be an effective tool for risk reduction in thecore components of the regulatory process, it isdeveloped world. To date, such regulatory measures

clear that successful building regulation depends

have proven ineffective in low- and middle-incomeon 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 failedbuilding finance and insurance, and increased

regulation in Chapter 1 and the review of effective

security of tenure can contribute significantly toregulation, especially regulation that has involved
solving specific problems, in Chapter 2.
The reform agenda outlined above seeks to
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of building
regulation, and so guide urban development to lesshazardous locations and less vulnerable structures.

code compliance and building safety.
This agenda outlined above provides the basis
for a proposed Building Regulation for Resilience
Program to support the development of building
and land use regulatory capacity in low- andmiddle-income countries. That program ispresented in the next chapter.

An effective building regulatory regime begins
with the foundation of national legislation that
establishes rights and responsibilities, includingorganizational responsibilities for the coreregulatory process. This foundation must be
properly designed and executed both to support
the organizational structure for development andmaintenance of context-appropriate codes andstandards, and to facilitate code implementation atmunicipal and local levels.
The characteristics of successful code development
processes and documents are known. The
major burden of regulatory implementationand compliance falls at the local level. The
recommendations in this chapter relate toadministrative practice, compliance support,
and procedural justice. They point to educationand training for building professionals andbuilders, as well as advisory support to facilitatecode compliance, as a valuable complement to
the normal processes of review, inspection, andenforcement. Specific recommendations are
directed to the efficient allocation of regulatory
resources to maximize risk reduction—aprocess 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
and land use regulatory authority to protect
public health and safety and reduce disasterand chronic risk.

1.2. Adopt a legal framework to support the effec-

1.3. Adopt other critical legislation that contributes

tive enforcement of building code regulations
at the local level.

to compliant construction.

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

an open,participatory,
consensus-based
process for codedevelopment.

2.2 Adopt a local

building codereferencing anestablishedmodel code while
incorporatingnecessary adaptations to local
context.

2.3 Develop acomprehensive
building codethat covers thefull range of
relevant construction types
and practices.

2.4 Establish building
materials testing
and certificationlaboratories thatare accessible tomajor construction zones.

2.5 Provide for wide

dissemination ofcode documents
and training forbuilders andowners based oncode documentation.

2.6 Create andmaintain publicawareness of basic safe construction principles forthe community,
building owners,
and informal
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

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

applying principles ofprocedural justice andtransparency.

increased efficiency
and transparencyof building control
procedures.

associated with local
building regulatory
reforms.

to construction permits
and inspections.

resolution and appeal
mechanisms.

sistent with the cost of
regulatory services.

support to building
departments at the local
level with technicallyqualified and adequately compensated building
officials.

from the private sector
for more efficient andeffective compliancechecks mechanisms.

building permitting andinspections procedures.

accountability
mechanisms aroundpublic-private partnerships in buildingcode compliancechecks.

03
Chapter4

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 andcode compliance.

5

Take advantage of opportunities for regulatory interventions.

5.1 Prioritize by building function and exposure
to hazards.

5.2 Utilize public building programs as points ofentry for the regulatory process.

5.3 Exploit disaster experience to advance
regulatory policy.

6

Clearly identify hazard zones and restrict development according to exposure.

6.1 Execute hazard

mapping forpotential urban
extension areas
in advance of
unregulated
development
to direct new
settlement tosafer sites.

6.2 Reference

hazard zones
in building
codes withemphasis on
added structuralrequirements.

6.3 Execute hazard

mapping for existing settlement
areas to establish priorities
for retrofit andrelocation.

6.4 Provide

infrastructure
in safer areas
to direct urban
expansion andland use.

6.5 Make public

comprehensive
information on
hazard exposureand the rationale
for land use
management.

6.6 Institutealternative uses
to occupy hazard
zones.

77

Advance supporting institutions.

7.1 Improve regimes oftenure security tocreate greater incentive
for compliance.

7.2 Increase the account-ability of building
professionals by
increasing liability
regimes backed byinsurance mechanisms.

7.3 Improve the capability

and accountability of
regulatory agencies
through quality control
measures.

7.4 Leverage housing

finance mechanisms tospur investment into
safer housing.

7.5 Mobilize market

demand for safer
buildings.

115

Programmatic Opportunities

4.1— A programmatic
proposal in support of
the Sendai Framework for
Action agenda

potential of effective building regulations inThis report calls for an expanded and coordinatedselective, 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 thaton the recommendations presented in Chapter 3.

risk reduction. There is a largely unexploited
opportunity to pool global experience fromdeveloped and developing countries at a larger
scale in order to adapt lessons learned tovulnerable cities and disaster-prone areas in abuilding and land use regulation has not beeneffectively implemented as an essential componentof disaster and chronic risk reduction in low- andmiddle-income countries. Disaster risk reduction
will only remain an aspiration until competentareas will considerably depend on how otherdevelopment initiatives succeed in helping thepoor access better and safer housing and essential
services. The program would seek to build

regulatory regimes and compliance mechanisms

synergies with related programs such as upgradingare established.

116

Achieving risk reduction in the most vulnerable

of informal settlements, affordable housing

In March 2015, the Sendai Framework for Disasterprojects, housing finance, land development andRisk Reduction reasserted the strong internationaluse policies, regularization initiatives, and post-consensus to act now by expanding the fulldisaster reconstruction programs.

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

04
Chapter

A new Building Regulation for Resilience Program

The program will be structured aroundis 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
countries on track toward accomplishing, effective
reforms. Recognizing the incremental process ofregulatory development, the intent of the programis to accelerate the application of scientific andengineering knowledge to building practice.

4.2—Program strategic goal
The strategic goal of the program is to reduce
human and economic losses by limiting thecreation of new risks and reducing existing risks inthe built environments of low- and middle-income
countries. By implementing building regulationand supporting active compliance, the program
will accelerate the application of current scientificand engineering understanding to a safer built
environment.

and institutions
2. Developing, updating, and maintaining buildingcodes
3. Investing in local regulatory implementation andcompliance support
4. Maintaining strong support for regulatory reformat the international level through knowledge
sharing, communications, and measurement of
results
A brief description of the program components
is provided in Section 4.3. Based on local
circumstances, each component will focus
on implementing a relevant subset of therecommendations developed in Chapter 3.
The specific recommendations under eachcomponent serve as the basis to establish a genericwork program. It is anticipated that each cluster

The program will provide technical assistance andof recommendations will be modified to create a

support targeted investment activities with a focus

locally applicable work program that will fit theon strengthening implementation capacity at theparticular development needs of the national or

municipal level.

local intervention.

FIGURE 4.1 — Building Regulation for Resilience Program
National level intervention

National Level
Legislation and Institutions

Develops the national enabling legal and administrative framework for theestablishment and enforcement of land use and building regulations.

Component 2

National and municipal level intervention

Building Code Development
and Maintenance

Sets out minimum requirements for safe construction of new buildings and retrofit
of existing buildings. Creates permanent updating mechanisms and incorporates
updated risk hazard assessments.

Component 3

Municipal level intervention

Local Implementation

Component 4
Knowledge Sharing
and Measurement

Country-level interventions

Component 1

Supports the introduction of building code implementation mechanisms such asplan reviews, inspections, and permitting, as well as training of engineers andbuilders.

International level intervention
Contributes to effective international effort to promote knowledge of goodpractice and supports measurement of risk reduction in construction.

117

118

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

4.3— Program activities
and institutions
At the country level, the program will deploy
Components 1, 2, and 3, which involve
interdependent activities to be initiatedfunding opportunities often available throughcentral government channels. Component 1 will
guide the development of quality control measures
set at the national level. This will then ensure that
regulatory reforms are effective at strengthening
building code implementation at the local level.

simultaneously. Components of the regulatory

If there is demand, Component 1 could also

regime can be strengthened in parallel at theinclude improvement to other supporting

central and local level. Country interventions will

institutions through legislation; these supporting

assume a three- to four-year timeline consistentinstitutions include those involved in accreditation

with the time required to set reforms on track
and complete the key recommendations fromprocesses for building authorities, licensing ofbuilding professionals, development of liability

Chapter 3.

and insurance mechanisms, and enhancement

Component 1: National Level Legislation
and Institutions

to code compliance and disaster risk reduction.

Based on locally defined priorities, activities
under this component will establish or improveof housing finance instruments as they relate
The contribution of these institutions to codecompliant and safe construction would have to bereviewed.

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 programsand enable the construction process to proceed

and to expand the risk-based regulatory capacity ofefficiently. This component of the program

central authorities.

will review national level regulations and legal
provisions regarding the licensing and disciplinary
oversight of the major stakeholders in theconstruction process. It will review the adequacyof appeals processes associated with administrativedecisions made by local authorities.
Because municipalities are often funded by national
governments and are not always independent
in their decision making, national authorities
may exert considerable influence on howmunicipalities allocate regulatory resources andon what mechanisms for risk management they
adopt. In administratively centralized forms ofgovernments, Component 1 will provide advice onrisk management to relevant national authorities.
Component 1 is expected to support central
government authorities in developing acomprehensive national coverage of hazard
mapping, which is a highly specialized task with

Recommendations presented in Chapter 3 help
define a core development agenda under thiscomponent. They include the following:
1.1

Establish a legislative foundation for a building
and land use regulatory authority to protect
public health and safety and reduce disasterand chronic risk.

1.2 Adopt a legal framework to support theeffective enforcement of building code
regulations at the local level.
1.3 Adopt other legislation that contributes tocompliant construction.
5.1 Prioritize by building function and exposure
to hazards.
5.2 Utilize public building programs as points ofentry for the regulatory process.
5.3 Exploit disaster experience to advance
regulatory policy.

04
Chapter

6.1 Execute hazard mapping for potential urban
extension areas in advance of unregulated
development to direct new settlement tosafer sites.
6.2 Reference hazard zones in building codes withemphasis on added structural requirements.
6.3 Execute hazard mapping for existingbodies, in an open and consensus-oriented
deliberative process.
Component 2 will implement measures ensuringthat hazard mapping is appropriately referenced
in the local building code, and that the buildingcode covers the full range of prevalent forms of
construction (from sophisticated engineered

settlement areas to establish priorities forstructures to traditional and indigenous

retrofit and relocation.

construction). Codes should address a range

6.4 Provide infrastructure in safer areas to direct
urban expansion and land use.
6.5 Make public comprehensive information on
hazard exposure and the rationale for land
use management.
6.6 Institute alternative uses to occupy
hazard zones.
7.1 Improve regimes of tenure security to create
greater incentive for compliance.
7.2 Increase the accountability of buildingof building-related issues, including structural,electrical, mechanical, plumbing, fire, and energy
conservation. Particular attention should be paid
to criteria for evaluating and improving vulnerable
existing buildings.
Under this component, research will be pursued
to improve the safety of local construction
methods, based on local materials and construction
practices. This component will support buildingcode implementation through the disseminationof 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 accountabilityof regulatory agencies through quality
control measures.
7.4 Leverage housing finance mechanisms to spur
investment into safer housing.

to establish an adequate network of accredited
facilities for testing and certifying building
materials.
Direct investment under this component
will involve funding of materials testing

7.5 Mobilize market demand for safer buildings.

facilities and equipment, training of staff, andComponent 2: Building CodeDevelopment and Maintenancetesting laboratories.

Component 2 supports the development of locallycomponent include the following:

implementable building codes, including theadaptation of national model codes. Activities
under this component will help establish the basic
institutional capacity to develop, adapt, and update
appropriate standards of construction throughparticipative and transparent processes at thenational level. Efforts associated with Component

funding of accreditation programs of product-

The recommendations of Chapter 3 relevant to this
2.1 Establish an open, participatory, consensusbased process for code development.
2.2 Adopt a local building code referencing anestablished model code but incorporatingnecessary adaptations to local context.
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 researchtypes and practices.

119

120

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

2.4 Establish building materials testing andcertification laboratories accessible to major
construction zones.

programs for architects, engineers, planners,

2.5 Provide for wide dissemination of code
documents and training for builders andowners based on code documentation.

for online building permitting and inspection

2.6 Create and maintain public awareness ofbasic safe construction principles for thecommunity, building owners, and informal
sector builders.

The recommendations of Chapter 3 relevant to thisComponent 3: Local Implementation

3.2 Communicate changes associated with local

Activities under this component will provide
advice to and investment in enhanced regulatory
implementation capacity at the local level.
Advisory activities will strengthen the corebuilding control functions of preconstruction
plan reviews, site inspections, and permitting byleveraging new instruments described in Chapter
3. These functions will also be strengthened by
improving technical outreach services to designers
and builders to support code-compliant designand construction.
The objectives of the program are to limit
the expansion of disaster risk in future urban
development and to reduce disaster risk in existing
vulnerable communities. Greater regulatory
capacity for new construction will provide afoundation for extending regulatory practice tothe inspection and improvement of vulnerable
existing buildings. Risk reduction in existing
precode settlements poses special challenges thatwill require an augmented building regulatory
capacity and an extended period of execution.
Assessment and intervention in occupied existingbuildings require particular sensitivity to social andeconomic factors.
Concrete opportunities for direct investment
include training for building department staff
and inspectors to enhance both their advisoryand enforcement capacity. Funding can also be
directed to code-based professional training

and buildings trades. Funding can support the
procurement and installation of ICT infrastructure
systems and, when feasible, integration into larger
eGovernment services.

component include the following:
3.1 Enhance compliance by applying principles ofprocedural justice and transparency.
building regulatory reforms.
3.3 Establish conflict resolution andappeal mechanisms.
3.4 Provide funding and support to building
departments at the local level with technicallyqualified and adequately compensatedbuilding officials.
3.5 Simplify and reengineer building permitting
and inspections procedures.
3.6 Apply ICT to support increased efficiency andtransparency of building control procedures.
3.7 Apply risk management to construction
permits and inspections.
3.8 Apply fee levels consistent with the cost of
regulatory services.
3.9 Leverage resources from the private sector
for more efficient and effective compliancecheck mechanisms.
3.10 Create robust accountability mechanisms
around public-private partnerships in buildingcode compliance checks.
4.1 Enhance the supporting role of regulatory
function rather than police enforcement.
4.2 Use regulatory capacity to coordinate training
for building trades, architects, engineers, andowner-builders on improved construction
techniques and code compliance.

04
Chapter

5.1 Prioritize by building function and exposure
to hazards.
5.2 Utilize public building programs as points ofentry for the regulatory process.
5.3 Exploit disaster experience to advance
regulatory policy.
6.1 Execute hazard mapping for potential urban
extension areas in advance of unregulated
development to direct new settlement tosafer sites.
6.2 Reference hazard zones in building codes withemphasis on added structural requirements.
6.3 Execute hazard mapping for existing

Component 4: Knowledge Sharing
and Measurement
While Components 1, 2, and 3 will be deployed in
specific country interventions, activities underComponent 4 will expand the international reach of
the program. This component will provide access tocommon technical, legal, and regulatory resources
as well as to shared experience of regulatory
implementation and common measurements ofregulatory performance. It will also advance theregulatory agenda of the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction.
Specifically, Component 4 will carry out diagnostic
assessments of existing regulatory regimes (toestablish 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

6.4 Provide infrastructure in safer areas to direct
urban expansion and land use.

evaluation and rating of regulatory performance,
efficiency, and effectiveness will be developed,
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 landinterventions to support building and land use

use management.

regulatory capacity building.

6.6 Institute alternative uses to occupy
hazard zones.

Component 4 will develop a global open-source
platform to regroup information from diagnostics

121

122

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCEFIGURE 4.2 — Potential stakeholders of the Building Regulation for Resilience Program
Component 1:
National Level Legislation

Component 2:
Building Code Development &Maintenance

Component 3:
Local Implementation

Component 4:
Knowledge Sharing &Measurement

Primary level ofintervention

National

National and municipality

Municipality

International

Key potential
partners

Line Ministries (Housing, reconstruction,
construction, infrastructure, etc.)

Local and international engineering
associations

Local government
authorities, planning andbuilding authorities

Bilateral donors

Authorities in charge with DRR and local
emergency & relief agencies

Local private sector and industry
representatives

Local emergency andrelief operations

ISDR

National legislative authorities

Local research bodies and/or university and leading local
scientists.

Communities leadership,
CBO & NGOs

UN-Habitat

Civil society & private sector, incl. national
home owners, builders, architects, civilengineering associations and developers)

Building trades, including masons

Local private sector andindustry representatives

UNESCO

Insurance companies groupings or
association

Technical institutions withexperience in non-engineering
sector in developing countries

and evaluations of regulatory capacity. This
information will form the baseline against which
future progress may be measured.
Component 4 will consolidate knowledge andinnovations in regulatory practices and provide
access to a range of functioning tools for evaluationand implementation purposes.

Figure 4.2 identifies potential stakeholders andinstitutional partners for the design and delivery of
program intervention across all components.

4.4— Measuring progress
In line with the Sendai Framework for Action agenda,
the program will carry out baseline surveys andA focal point to serve and coordinate both///

local and international partners///

The Building Regulation for Resilience Program
will offer the structure to involve and galvanize
a wide range of partners with specific strengths
and experiences in building a regulatory process.
Components 1 and 2 will primarily involve national
government entities and organizations. Component
3 will engage local authorities and subnational
government organizations as well as NGOs, CBOs,
civil society organizations, and professional groups.
Partnerships will be established with international

develop indicators that will serve as the basis
for targets—both qualitative and quantitative—
for reducing chronic and disaster risk in thebuilt environment.
Reducing risk depends upon the complex
interaction of several variables. Direct investment
in improved regulatory capacity in building
departments at the municipal level, such as
inspector training, must be accompanied by
improvements in building professional training,materials certification, construction finance, andinsurance.

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 theknowledge sharing, and funding contributions

estimation of expected losses and the dynamics ofconsistent 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 forof regulatory implementation to code compliancereinspection. Second, the cost of reinspectionand evidence of safer construction:

can be very significant. To minimize such costs,• The development of an enabling policy andlegislative framework for effective buildingcode regimes. This can be measured by aninventory and evaluation of legislation andpolicies designed to enhance building codes andcode compliance.
• The establishment of institutional capacity
for the implementation of legislation, building
codes, and standards. The program will rely

the program will use rapid visual screening (RVS)
and statistical sampling. In the case of existingbuildings, RVS surveys will be based on threeparameters, exposure, vulnerability, and occupancy.
The RVS is an evaluation procedure developedby the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) in the late 1980s to identify, inventory, andscreen buildings that are potentially seismicallyhazardous.114

on outcome indicators reflecting the actual

These indicators would serve as a starting pointcompliance with code provisions. Verification

for measurement: the final selection of indicatorsof compliance may be confirmed by third-party

would need to be well-tailored to the specificchecks of plan reviews and site inspections.

objectives and scope of country-level interventions.

The program plans to use a set of core indicators tomeasure the impacts of the program’s intervention(Figure 4.3).

Experience has shown that indicators are mostsuccessful when developed by those who will
use them to guide decision making. Given therelation 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, Doingto 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 muchand new “best practices.” Its release is frequently accompanied by ato encourage political leaders and regulators in developing countries

spirited debate among its staunch supporters and opponents.

to improve their construction standards, simplify procedures, andreduce 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 inacross 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 competitivein construction regulation. This volume will also assess the qualitypressure 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 ofbroad ownership and maximizes commitments

local building code implementation on actual

to reforms.

risk reduction in buildings. Starting in 2016, thereport 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 reformof buildings, and qualifications requirements

priorities, and measure progress on interim
accomplishments, the program will make use of atleast two sets of data:

for engineers.
• An evaluation and benchmarking methodology
will be developed to capture more detailed• Doing Business’s annual survey referencing

building regulatory processes and effectivenessconstruction permit indicators would provide

indicators. This will make it possible to assessmeasurement on general aspects of building

more comprehensively the contribution ofregulatory administrative efficiency (Box 4.1).

building code implementation to actual disaster

The same survey is now being extended torisk reduction and resilience.

FIGURE 4.3 — Core indicators of progress and impact

CORE INDICATORS OF PROGRESS & IMPACT

Output Indicators

Outcome Indicators••

Percentage of new construction built in compliance withbuilding code requirements

Number of laws and regulations drafted or revised to support effective implementation of building code systems•

Number of building departments with adequate fundingand qualified staffing•

Number of people benefiting from reduced risks in the built
environment•

Number of accredited professional training programs forbuilding department inspectors and building professionals•

Number of cities and related populations served by•

Value of financial investment in municipal building control
capacity1effective building regulatory functions of plan review andon-site inspection•

Rate of deaths and injuries as a result of fire, structural collapse, or other defects in new regulated buildings relative
to the size of building stocks•

Number of formally certified inspectors•

Ratio of qualified building department staff to volume of
construction to be reviewed and inspected••

Percentage of districts with comprehensive hazard assessment and mapping••

Number of existing buildings surveyed and evaluated for

Percentage of schools sited and designed to withstandhazard loads•

Percentage of health facilities sited and designed to withstand hazard loads•

Percentage of existing (pre -code) buildings assessed forpotential disaster resiliencedisaster resilience capacity•

Percentage of districts with hazard zonation defining
permitted land uses

Survey-based estimates of percentage of nonconforming
buildings relative to the size of building stocks•

Number of programs of training sessions on code compliance for owners and builders, including the informal sector••

Number of programs of public information on the purpose
and implementation of building and land use regulation

Percentage of existing vulnerable buildings retrofitted towithstand hazard loads•

Number of code infractions identified and adjudicated•Number of hazardous buildings condemned and removed•

Number of professional certifications revoked•

Number of code violations cited

05
ChapterConclusionB

uilding and land use regulation has proven

By implementing building regulation andto be the most effective tools for reducing

supporting active compliance, the proposeddisaster and chronic risk in the developed world.

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 notscientific and engineering understanding to a safer

successfully employed these tools. With thebuilt environment.

initiation of the Sendai Framework for Action, there
is now an opportunity to reengage in the challengeof reducing disaster and chronic risk in low- andmiddle-income countries. This new effort isarmed 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 andurban 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 toleverage the total investment in building andinfrastructure toward greater safety and security.

125

126

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

Endnotes
1

UNISDR 2012.

2

UNISDR 2015.

32

Why do People Die in Earthquakes? The Costs, Benefits
and Institutions of Disaster Risk reduction in
Developing Countries, Kenny, 2009.

3
4

UNISDR 2015.

33

Munich Re, NatCat Service, 2013, http://www.munichre.
com/en/reinsurance/business/non-life/georisks/
natcatservice/default.aspx.

From Everyday Hazards to Disasters: The Accumulationof Risk in Urban Areas, Bull-Kamanga, 2003.

34

Adelekan et al. 2015.

35

Disaster Risk Reduction: Cases from urban Africa,
Pelling & Wisner 2009.

36

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/
interactive/2013/sep/03/india-failing-2651-deathsstructural-collapse-architecture-housing.

5

Kenny 2009.

6

World Bank 2014.

7

Bilham and Ambraseys 2011.

8

UNISDR 2015.

37

Yanev 2010.

Johnson, 2011.

938

Thirkel, 1996.

10

World Bank 2013.

39

11

IFRC and UNDP 2014.

The CAPRA program is an initiative that aims tostrengthen the institutional capacity for assessing,understanding and communicating disaster risk,
with the ultimate goal of integrating disaster risk
information into development policies and programs.

12

Munich Re, 2010 data.

13

World Bank and United Nations 2010.

14

Lewis and Purcell 2015.

15

da Silva 2013.

16

Further referred to as “HFA 2 agenda”.

17

UN General Assembly 2014.

18

Bilham 2009.

19

IPCC 2014.

40

UN-Habitat, Secure Land Rights for All, 2008.

41

Commission on Legal Empowerment of thePoor Making the Law Work for Everyone,
Volume 2, Working Group Reports — http://
legalempowerement.undp.org/reports.

42

Payne.

43

Towards a National Building Code, Eng. Noel daCosta,
no date.

20

Brecht, Deichmann, and Wang 2010.

44

Yahya et al, 2001.

21

GFDRR.

45

22

UN-Habitat 2014.

23

Kellett and Caravani 2013.

Disaster Risk Reduction in Turkey: Revisions for Land
use Planning, Development and Building Code
Enforcement since 1999, Gülkan, 2010.

46

24

International Association of Fire and Rescue Services(CTIF), 2015 Report.

Blondet, M. and G. Villa Garcia M. Adobe construction.
Available online at: http://www.world-housing.net/
wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Adobe_Blondet.pdf.

25

Philippine Economic Update, World Bank, 2014.

47

26

The value and Impact of Building Codes, Vaughan &Turner, 2013.

Blondet, M. and G. Villa Garcia M. Adobe construction,
op cit.

48

Shifting Agendas: Response to Resilience, Jo da Silva,
no date.

49

Incremental and Affordable Housing Policy Toolkit,
World Bank Group, 2015.

50

Ferguson & Smets Finance for Incremental Housing:
Current Status & Prospects for Expansion, 2009.

51

Housing Policies, Quality of Housing & urban
Development: Lessons for the Latin American
Experience, Rojas, 2015.

52

Jamaica Bureau of Standards, interview (2015).

53

Johnson, 2011.

54

Municipal Financing and urban Development, UNHabitat, 2008.

27

IBHS.

28

Assessment of Energy Efficiency Achievable from
Improved Compliance with US Building Energy Codes
2013-2030, Sarah Stellberg, February 2013 quoted byVaughan & Turner.

29

Managing Disaster Risk for a Resilient Future, GFDRR,
2012.

30

Global Assessment Report (GAR) on Disaster Risk
Reduction, 2013.

31

Shifting Agendas The Role of Engineer in Disaster Risk
Reduction, Jo da Silva, 2012 (LSE Cities public lecture
in partnership with OveArup Foundation).

Endnotes
References
55

A clear correlation exists between a nation’s per capita
income and the level of corruption, Ambraseys &Bilham, 2011.

56“Corruption Kills”, Ambraseys & Bilham, 2011.

57

Transparency International Bribes Payer Index, 2011.

58

Olken, 2004.

59

Transparency International Global Corruption Report,
2005.

60

Kenny, 2007.

61

Clientelismo Y Desarrolo Barrial en Bogotá: Analisis a
Partir Del Caso Del Barrio Cerro Norte, Aunta Peña,
2009.

62

World Bank Enterprise Survey.

63

http://beeps.prognoz.com/beeps/Home.ashx.

64

EQI International.

65

Ambraseys, Bilham, 2011.

66

Referred to as “D595” promulgated on April 10, 2000.

67

Disaster Risk Reduction in Turkey: revisions for Land
Use Planning, Development and Building Code
Enforcement Since 1999, Gülkan, 2010.

68

Data is unfortunately often not available or notcomparable for construction related safety issues —and the relatively low frequency of accidents makes
it difficult to build meaningful comparisons, hence
our reliance on fire safety statistics as a proxy.

69

This observation is in now measure limited to theFormer Soviet Union nor should it be understoodthat we are singling out these countries — they werechosen because of data availability and because
they have meaningful regulations on the books
which if implemented appropriately should ensure abetter level of safety.

70

International Finance Corporation, 2015.

71

Doing Business, 2015.

72

Doing Business, 2015.

73

Ecole Nationale des Ingénieurs Abderhamane B.Touréfounded in 1963.

79

Doing Business Report, World Bank Group, 2015.

80

Doing Business records the procedures, time andcost required for a small-to-medium-size business
to obtain all necessary approvals to build a simple
commercial warehouse and connect it to water andsewerage systems.

81

World Bank, 2013.

82

Illustrating this point: the work of Becker (1968),
Allingham and Sandmo (1972) and Srinivasan (1973)
in the field of tax compliance.

83“The Economic Psychology of Tax Behaviour”, Kirchler,
2007.

84

Blanc, Macrae, Ottimofiore 2015.

85

Public Administration Behavior, Lind, Van den Bos, Van
den Velden, 2014.

86

Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the Effective Ruleof Law, Crime and Justice, volume 30, Tyler, 2003.

87

Managing and Maintaining Compliance”, Elffers,
Verboon, Huisman, 2006.

88

Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Enforcement
and Inspections, OECD, 2014; Regulator’s Code,BRRDO, 2014.

89

It is Not Too Late: Preparing for Asia’s Next Big
Earthquake, Yanev, GFDRR, 2010.

90

Building Resilience, WB, GFDRR, 2013.

91

Guidebook for Building Earthquake-Resistant
Construction of one to Two-Storey Buildings in
Confined Masonry, Revised June 2015.

92

Pierson Lester, 2014.

93www.doingbusiness.org.

94

How Transparent is Business Regulation Around theWorld, Geginat 2013.

95

Best Practice Ingredients for Building Regulation, NSW/ACT Chapter Conference in Sydney, Kim Lovegrove,
2013.

96

Reforming Building Permits, IFC, 2009.

97

Ministry of Housing, Ontario, 2009.

74

Doing Business Report database, 2015.

98

International Finance Corporation, 2015.

75

Munich Re, 2013.

99

76

This definition extends the traditional definition of theterm since the World Bank generally defines “risk”
as a function of hazard, vulnerability and exposure.
Consideration of “social consequences” provides animportant element to better grasp and determine
the relative notion of acceptable risk.

Doing Business Report: data aggregated for the 20062014 period.

77

78

To allow consistent comparisons, Doing Businessrecords the cost required for a small medium-sizebusiness to obtain all necessary approvals to build
as simple commercial warehouse and connect it tosewerage and water. The warehouse is assumed tohave two stories, both above ground, with a total
constructed area of 1,300 square meters). Each floor
is three meters high.
The term “applicable laws” refers to laws, regulations,and bylaws which would prohibit construction
unless complied with. For example, an applicablelaw could include provisions that prohibit high-risebuildings in certain locations near runways andairports, or that regulate construction in floodplainsor agricultural areas.

100

This regime was implemented in April 2013.

101

Doing Business Report, World Bank Group, 2015.

102

Building Regulatory Enforcement Regimes, Jeroen vander Heijden, 2009.

103

To this effect, Victoria established a private-public“Building Practitioners Board”, an independent
organization which oversees the quality andstandard of the State’s building industry professions.

104

The “curadores” were legally established in 1995
as certified individuals delegated with the public
responsibilities to administer building permit
reviews and to issue permits. Curadores set
up shop and were in full operation by January
1996. Initially, curadores were selected amongexperienced architects and engineers withconstruction experience.

105

Initiated by the Field Act, shortly introduced after
the earthquake with other laws, that banned the

127

128

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

construction of unreinforced masonry buildings,
and required that earthquake forces be taken into
account in structural design.

110Good Practices for Construction Regulation and
Enforcement Reform, World Bank, 2013.

111

Based on report from Doug Martin, Crown Manager
appointed to the Christchurch City Council after the
IANZ withdrew its accreditation to the city’s BCA,March 2015.

106

A Financial Framework for reducing Slums: Lessons
from Experience in Latin America, Ferguson,
Navarrete, 2003.

112

107

Property Rights for the Poor: Effects of Land Titling,
Galiani & Schargrodsky, 2010.

Housing Finance Policy in Emerging Markets, Loic
Chiquier, Micahel Lea, 2009.

113

Kagawa 2002.

Turkey Green Buildings Market Study, IFC, 2013.

108

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,
and S. Parnell. 2015. “Disaster Risk and Its Reduction:
An Agenda for Urban Africa.” International Development
Planning Review 37, No 1, 33—43.

Bin, S. 2012. Third Parties in the Implementation of Building
Energy Codes in China. Washington, DC: American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy and Institute forMarket Transformation.

Allan, P. 2002. “National Review of Home Builders Warranty
Insurance and Consumer Protection.” Ministerial Council
on Consumers Affairs, Canberra.

Blanc, F., and G. Ottimofiore. 2015. “Stakeholders Consultationin the Framework of Regulatory Impact Assessment.” In
Handbook of Regulatory Impact Assessment, edited by C.
Radaelli and C. Dunlop. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Andrews, R. N. L. 1998. “Environmental Regulation andBusiness Self-Regulation.” Policy Science 31: 177—197.
Armstrong, E. 2005. Integrity, Transparency and Accountability
in Public Administration: Recent Trends, Regional andInternational Developments and Emerging Issues. New
York: United Nations.
Arnold, M., A. de la Fuente, C. Benson, D. Clarke, X. Giné, and R.
Vargas Hill. 2013. Forthcoming. “Insuring Resilience: What
Does the Evidence Tell Us?” World Bank Synthesis Report.

Blondet, M., J. Vargas, and N. Tarque. 2005. “Building Codes
for Earthen Buildings in Seismic Areas: The Peruvian
Experience.” Proceedings for the First International
Conference Living in Earthen Cities, ITU-Istanbul, Turkey.
Blondet, M., M. G. Villa Garcia Medina, S. Brzev, and A. Rubiños.
2011. “Earthquake-Resistant Construction of Adobe
Buildings: A Tutorial.” 2nd edition. EERI/IAEE World
Housing Encyclopedia.

Arshad, A., and A. Athar. 2013. Rural Housing Reconstruction
Program Post-2005 Earthquake‚ÄîLearning from the
Pakistan Experience: A Manual for Post-Disaster Housing
Program Managers. Washington, DC: World Bankand GFDRR.

Bondy, K. B. 2003. “Judging Building Codes.” ConcreteInternational 25: 93—96.

Ayres, I., and J. Braithwaite. 1992. Responsive Regulation:
Transcending the Deregulation Debate. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Braithwaite, V., and M. Reinhart. 2013. “Deterrence, Coping
Styles and Defiance.” FinanzArchiv/Public FinanceAnalysis 69, no. 4: 439—468.

Baiche, B., N. Walliman, and R. Ogden. 2006. “Compliance with
Building Regulations in England and Wales.” Structural
Survey 24: 279—299.

Brecht, H., U. Deichmann, and H. Gun Wang. 2010. “Predicting
future urban natural hazard exposure.”

Baldwin, R., B. Hutter, and H. Rothstein. 2000. Risk Regulation,
Management and Compliance. London: London Schoolof Economics.
Bamberger, K. A. 2006. “Regulation as Delegation: Private
Firms, Decision Making and Accountability in the
Administrative State.” Duke Law Journal 56: 377—468.
Bilham, R. 2009. “The Seismic Future of Cities.” Bulletin ofEarthquake Engineering 7: 839.
Bilham, R., and N. Ambraseys. 2011. “Corruption Kills.” Nature
469: 153.

Braithwaite, J. 2002. Restorative Justice and Responsive
Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Breyer, S. 1993. Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective
Risk Regulation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bull-Kamanga, L., K. Diagne, A. Lavell, E. Leon, F. Lerise, H.
MacGregor, and A. Maskrey. 2003. “From Everyday
Hazards to Disasters: The Accumulation of Risk in Urban
Areas.” Environment and Urbanization 15, no. 1: 193—203.
Burby, R. J. 2006. “Hurricane Katrina and the Paradoxes
of Government Disaster Policy: Bringing About Wise
Governmental Decisions for Hazardous Areas.” The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Sciences 604, No 1, 171-191.

Endnotes
References
Burby, R. J. (no date). “Building Disaster Resilient Communities,
Enforcement and Compliance Strategies.” Session No 20(lecture).
Chiquier, L., and M. Lea. 2009. Housing Finance Policy inEmerging Markets. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
Comerio, M. 2004. “Public policy for reducing earthquake risks:a US perspective.” Building Research & Information 32:
403-413.
DaCosta, N. (date unknown). “Towards A National Building
Code.” Jamaica Institute of Engineers.
Da Silva, J. 2013. “Shifting Agendas: Response to Resilience.
The Role of the Engineer in Disaster Risk Reduction.” The
Institution of Civil Engineers 9th Brunel International
Lecture Series. London School of Economics, June 4.
Davis, D. 2007a. “Self-Certification Crackdown Sparks Turf War.”Architectural Record, 28 October.
Davis, D. 2007b. “Should Architects Self Certify Building Plans.”Architectural Record, 7 January.
Doyle, C. 1997. “Self-Regulation and Statutory Regulation.”
Business Strategy Review, 8: 35-42.
Dubnick, M. J. 2003. “Accountability and Ethics: Reconsidering
the Relationships.” International Journal of Organization
Theory and Behavior 6: 405-441.
Elffers, H., P. Verboon, and W. Huisman. 2006. Managing and
Maintaining Compliance. Eleven International Publishing.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2015. Rapid
Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic
Hazards: A Handbook. 3rd edition.
Ferguson B., and P. Smets. 2009. Finance for incremental
housing; current status & prospects for expansion.
Habitat International.
Fernandes, E. 2011. “Regularization of Informal Settlements in
Latin America, Policy Focus Report.” Lincoln Institute ofLand Policy.
Galiani, S., and E. Schargrodsky. 2010. “Property Rights for the
Poor: Effects of Land Titling.” Journal of Public Economics
94: 700-729.
Gülkan, P. 2001. “Revision of the Turkish Development Law
No. 3194 Governing Urban Development and Land-Use
Planning.” In Mitigation and Financing of Earthquake
Risks in Turkey, edited by P. R. Kleindorfer and M. R.
Sertel. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gülkan, P. 2000. What Emerged from the Rubble. Washington,
DC: ProVention; World Bank.
Gülkan, P. 2000. “Building Code Enforcement Prospects:
Failure of Public Policy.” 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey, Earthquake
Reconnaissance Report. Supplement A to Earthquake
Spectra 16: 351-367.
Gülkan, P. 2001. “Rebuilding the Sea of Marmara Region:¬†Recent Structural Revisions in Turkey to Mitigate
Disasters.” Wharton-World Bank Conference on
Challenges in Managing Catastrophic Risks: Lessons
for the US and¬†Emerging Economies, January 2001,
Washington, DC.
Gülkan, P. 2002. “Setting the Stage for Urban Risk Mitigation:
Seismic Risks and Compulsory Insurance Policy
Issues in Turkey.” Second Annual IIASA-DPRI Meetingon Integrated Disaster Risk Management: Megacity
Vulnerability and Resilience, July 29-31, 2002, Laxenburg,
Austria.

Gülkan, P. 2010. “Disaster Risk Reduction in Turkey: Revisionsfor Land Use Planning, Development and Building Code
Enforcement since 1999.” Case study prepared for ISDR
Global Assessment Report 2011.
Hampton, P. 2005. “Reducing administrative burdens: effective
inspection and enforcement.” HM Treasury, London.
Hood, C., H. Rothstein, and R. Baldwin. 2001. The Governmentof Risk. Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Horvat, M., and P. Fazio. 2005. “Comparative Review of Existing
Certification Programs and Performance Assessment
Tools for Residential Buildings.” Architectural Science
Review 48: 69-80.
Huber, P.W. 1988. Liability: The Legal Revolution and Its
Consequences. New York: Basic Books.
Hussey, P.S., G.F. Anderson, R. Osborn, C. Feek, V. McLaughlin,
J. Millar, and A. Epstein. 2004. “How Does The Quality
Of Care Compare In Five Countries?” Health Affairs 23:
89-99.
Hutter, B. 2005. “The Attractions of Riskbased Regulation:accounting for the emergence of risk ideas in regulation.”
Discussion paper no. 33, London, ESRC Centre forAnalysis and Risk Regulation.
IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2007. Strategic
Communications for Business Environment Reforms.
Washington, DC: IFC.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014.
Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, edited by O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y.
Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler,
I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel,
and J. C. Minx. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press.
IRFC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red CrescentSocieties) and UNDP (United Nations Development
Program). 2014. Effective Law and Regulation for Disaster
Risk Reduction: A Multi-Country Report. New York: IRFC
and UNDP.
Johnson, C. 2011. “Global Assessment Report on Disaster
Risk Reduction. Creating an enabling environment for
reducing disaster risk: Recent experience of regulatory
frameworks for land, planning and building in low andmiddle-income countries.” International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction.
Kagan, R. A. 1984. “On regulatory inspectorates and police.”
In Enforcing regulation, edited by K. Hawkins and J.M.
Thomas. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Kagan, R. A. 1994. “Regulatory Enforcement.” In Handbookof Regulation and Administrative Law, edited by D.
H. Rosenbloom and R. D. Schwartz. New York: Marcel
Dekker, Inc.
Kagawa, A., and J. Turkstra. 2002. “The Process of Urban
Land Tenure Formalisation in Peru.” In Land Rights andInnovation: Improving Tenure Security for the Urban Poor,edited by G. Payne. London: ITDG Publishing.
Kellett, J., and A. Caravani. 2013. Financing Disaster Risk
Reduction: A 20 Year Story of International Aid.
Washington, DC: Overseas Development Institute andGlobal Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery.

129

130

BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE

Kenny, C. 2007. “Construction, Corruption, and Developing
Countries.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper.

May, P. 2007. “Regulatory Regimes and Accountability.”
Regulation & Governance 1: 8-26.

Kenny, C. 2009. “Why do people die in earthquakes? The
Costs, benefits and institutions of disaster risk reduction
in developing countries.” World Bank Policy ResearchWorking Paper.

McLean, W. 2003. Inspector Discretion and Industry Compliancein the Street-Level Implementation of Building Codes.
New Orleans: University of New Orleans.

Kirchler, E. and E. Hoelzl. 2006. “Modelling Taxpayers’
Behaviour as a Function of Interaction between Tax
Authorities and Taxpayers.” In Managing and Maintaining
Compliance, edited by H. Elffers, H., P. Verboon, W.
Huisman. Den Haag: Boom Legal Publishers.
Kirchler, E. 2007. The Economic Psychology of Tax Behaviour.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Krimgold, F. 2011. “Disaster risk reduction and the evolutionof physical development regulation.” Environmental
Hazards 10:1, 53-58.
Krimgold, F. 1977. Seismic Design Decisions for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Building Code.
Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
LaFaive, M. 2001. “Looking over Private Inspections.” Michigan
Privatization Report, 20-21.
Levy, M., and M. Salvadori. 1992. Why Buildings Fall Down: How
Structures Fail. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Lewis, D., and P. H. Purcell. 2015. “From Disaster Risk Reduction
to Resilience: A New Urban Agenda for the 21st Century.”
Background paper prepared for the 2015 Global
Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, UNISDR.
Liu F., A.S. Meyer, and J.F. Hogan. “Mainstreaming Building
Energy Efficiency Codes in Developing Countries.” WorldBank Working Paper No 204.
Loesch, J., and D. Hammerman. 1998. “Private/public
partnerships to ensure building code compliance.”
Facilities 14: 28-38.
Lovegrove, K. 1991. The Primary Building Acts of Australia. A
Comparative Study. Sydney: The Federation Press.
Lovegrove, K. 2015. “Key elements which form the basis ofeffectively functioning building legislation that delivers
positive outcomes for all stakeholders.” A keynote
address at the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors
SA 2015 Chapter Conference.
Lloyd-Jones, T. 2006. Mind the gap! Post disaster reconstruction
and the transition from humanitarian relief. RICS.
Macrory, R. 2006. “Regulatory Justice: Making Sanctions
Effective.” London: Better Regulation Executive,
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills of theUnited Kingdom.
Maguire, L. A., and E. A. Lind. 2003. “Public participation inenvironmental decisions: Stakeholders, authorities
and procedural justice.” International Journal of Global
Environmental Issues 3, No. 2: 133-148.
May, P., and R. Burby. 1998. “Making Sense Out of Regulatory
Enforcement.” Law & Policy 20: 157-182.
May, P., and R. S. Wood. 2003. “At the Regulatory Front
Lines: Inspectors’ Enforcement Styles and Regulatory
Compliance.” Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory 13: 117-139.
May, P. 2003. “Performance-based Regulation and Regulatory
Regimes.” Paper prepared for the Global Policy Summit
on the Role of Performance-Based Building Regulationsin Addressing Societal Expectations, International Policy,
and Local Needs, Washington DC, November 3-5, 2003,
National Academy of Sciences.

Meacham, B., R. Bowen, J. Traw, and A. Moore. 2005.
“Performance-based building regulation: current
situation and future needs.” Building Research &Information 33: 91-106.
Meijer, F., and H. Visscher. 2006. “Deregulation and privatizationof European building-control systems?” Environment andPlanning B: Planning and Design 33: 491-501.
Moullier, T. 2013. Good Practices for Construction Regulationand Enforcement Reform. Guidelines for Reformers.
Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
Moullier, T. 2015. “Building & Land Use Regulatory
Implementation and Compliance at the Local Level. A
Priority for the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction.” GFDRR/World Bank position paper.
Napier, M. 2002. “The Origin and Spread of Core Housing.”
In Core Housing, Enablement and Urban Poverty: The
Consolidation Paths of Households Living in Two South
African Settlements. Newcastle upon Tyne: Newcastle
University.
Narafu, T., Y. Ishiyama, K. Okazaki, S. Ando, H. Imai, K. Pribadi,
A. Dixit, N. Ahmad, Q. Ali, and A. Turer. 2010. “A Proposal
for a Comprehensive Approach to Safer Non-Engineered
Houses.” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building
Engineering 9(2): 315-322.
Narafu, T., and M. Ishiwatari. 2013. “Building Performance.”
World Bank Knowledge Note.
Narafu, T., and K. Okazaki. 2007. “Housing Reconstruction
Practices in Aceh, Indonesia.” Journal of Architecture,
Planning and Environmental Engineering, 257-262.
Narafu, T., H. Imai, S. Matsuzaki, K. Sakoda, F. Matsumura,and Y. Ishiyama. 2008. “Basic Study for Bridge
between Engineering and Construction Practice of
Non-Engineered Houses.” Proceedings of 14th World
Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China,
October 12-17, 2008.
Narafu, T., and K. Okazaki. 2005. “A Strategic Approach toDisseminate Appropriate (building) Technologies toPeople.” Proceedings of SismoAdobe Conference, Lima,
Peru.
Navarette, J., and B. Fergusson. 2003. “A Financial Framework
for Reducing Slums: Lessons from Experience in Latin
America.” Environment and Urbanization 15, No 2: 201-216.
Olken, B. 2007. “Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a Field
Experiment in Indonesia.” Journal of Political Economy 115,
No 2: 200-249.
Papadopoulos, A. 2016. Resilience. The Ultimate Sustainability.
Resilience Action Fund Publisher. 2nd edition.
Parajuli, Y., J. Bothara, A. Dixit, J. Pradhan, and R. Sharpe. 2000.
“Nepal Building Code—Need, Development Philosophy
and Means of Implementation.” WCEE Conference,
Auckland, New Zealand.
Payne, G. 2001. “The Impact of Regulation on the Livelihoods of
the Poor.” Paper prepared for the ITDG research project‘Regulatory Guidelines for Urban Upgrading.’
Payne, G., and M. Majale. 2004. The Urban Housing Manual,
Making Regulatory Frameworks Work for the Poor. UK
and USA: Taylor and Francis.

Endnotes
References
Parker, C. 2000. “Reinventing Regulation Within the
Corporation: Compliance-Oriented Regulatory
Innovation.” Administration & Society 32, No 5: 529-565.
Pelling M., and B. Wisner. 2009. Disaster Risk Reduction: Casesfrom Urban Africa. UK and USA: Taylor and Francis.
Pheng, L.S. and D. Wee. 2001. “Improving maintenance andreducing building defects through ISO 9000.” Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering 7: 6-24.
Reis, Y. K. 2014. “Improving Building Permit Procedures in
Municipalities.” Planama 24(2): 55-63.
Rojas, E. 2015. “Housing Policies, Quality of Housing & Urban
Development: Lessons from the Latin American
Experience, 1960-2010.” Paper prepared for presentation
at the 2015 World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty,
Washington DC.
Schilderman, T., and L. Lowe. 2002. “The Impact of Regulations
on Urban Development and the Livelihoods of the Urban
Poor.” London: ITDG.
Schilderman, T., and E. Parker. 2014. Still Standing? Looking
Back at Reconstruction and Disaster Risk Reduction in
Housing. Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publishing.
Ruskulis, O. 2003. “Making Change Happen: Reforming
Inappropriate and Restrictive Regulatory Frameworks.”
Paper for Workshop of the DFID KAR Project - Regulatory
Guidelines for Urban Upgrading, 22-24 September,
Leamington, UK.
Tyler, T. R. 1988. “What Is Procedural Justice? Criteria Used by
Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures.” Law
and Society Review 22, No 1: 103-136.
Tyler, T. R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven:
Yale University.
Tyler, T. R., and E. A. Lind. 1992. “A Relational Model of
Authority in Groups.” In Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology Vol. 25, edited by M. Zanna. New York:
Academic.
Tyler, T. R. 2003. “Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the
Effective Rule of Law.” Crime and Justice 30: 283-357.
Shepherd, A., T. Mitchell, K. Lewis, A. Lenhardt, L. Jones, L. Scott,and R. Muir-Wood. 2013. The Geography of Poverty,
Disasters and Climate Extremes in 2030. London:
Overseas Development Institute.
Sparrow, M. K. 2000. The Regulatory Craft. Controlling
Risks, Solving Problems, and Managing Compliance.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Sparrow, M. K. 2008. The Character of Harms. Operational
Challenges in Control. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Spence, R. 2004. “Risk and regulation: can improved
government action reduce the impacts of natural
disasters?” Building Research & Information 32, No 5:
391-402.
Starossek, U. 2006. “Progressive Collapse of Structures:
Nomenclature and Procedures.” Structural Engineering
International 16: 113-117.
UNCRD (United Nations Centre for Regional Development).
2008. “Handbook: Building Code Implementation—
Learning from Experience of Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan
City, Nepal.” United Nations Centre for Regional.
Development Disaster Risk Management Planning
Hyogo Office.

Risk Reduction.” Third United Nations World Conference
on Disaster Risk Reduction.
UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk
Reduction). 2012. “UNISDR Counts the Cost of 20 Years ofInaction on Climate Change and Risk Reduction.” UNISDR,
June 13, 2012. http://www.unisdr.org/archive/27162.
UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk
Reduction). 2015. Making Development Sustainable: The
Future of Disaster Risk Management. Global Assessment
Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: UNISDR.
UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk
Reduction). 2015. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction 2015—2030. Geneva: UNISDR.
Vaughan, E., and J. Turner. 2013. “The Value and Impact of
Building Codes.” Environmental and Energy Study
Institute, September 30, 2013. http://www.eesi.org/
papers/view/the-value-and-impact-of-building-codes.
Van den Bos, K., L. van der Velden, and E. A. Lind. 2014. “On theRole of Perceived Procedural Justice in Citizens’ Reactions
to Government Decisions and the Handling of Conflicts.”
Utrecht Law Review 10, No 4: 1-26.
Van der Heijden, J. 2008. Competitive Enforcement.
Comparative analysis of Australian building regulatory
enforcement regimes. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Van der Heijden, J. 2009. “Building Regulatory Enforcement
Regimes. Comparative Analysis of Private Sector
Involvement in the Enforcement of Public Building
Regulations.” PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology.
Van der Heijden, J. 2009. “International Comparative Analysis
of Building Regulation: An Analytical Tool.” International
Journal of Law in the Built Environment 1(1): 9-25.
Van der Heijden, J., and J. De Jong. “Towards a Better
Understanding of Building Regulation.” Environment andPlanning B: Planning and Design 36(6): 1038-1052.
Winter, S.C., and P.J. May. 2001. “Motivation for Compliance withEnvironmental Regulations” Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management 20: 675-698.
World Bank. 2013. Building Resilience: Integrating Climate andDisaster Risk into Development. Washington, DC: WorldBank Group.
World Bank. 2014. Doing Business 2015: Going Beyond
Efficiency. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
World Bank. 2015. East Asia’s Changing Urban Landscape:Measuring a Decade of Spatial Growth. Washington, DC:
World Bank Group.
World Bank and United Nations. 2010. Natural Hazards,
Unnatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective
Prevention. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
Yanev, P. 2010. “It is not too late: Preparing for Asia’s Next Big
Earthquake.” World Bank and GFDRR Policy Note.
Yahya, S., E. Agevi, L. Lowe, A. Mugova, O. MusanduNyamayaro, and T. Schilderman. 2001. Double Standards,
Single Purpose: Reforming Housing Regulations to
Reduce Poverty. London: ITDG Publishing.
Yu, S., M. Evans, P. Kumar, L. Van Wie, and V. Bhatt. 2013.
“Using Third Party Inspectors in Building Energy Codes
Enforcement.” US Department of Energy.

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 theGovernance of Risk. Paris: OECD.

ABCB (Australian Building Codes Board) (ABCB). 2002. “ThePerformance Building Code of Australia; A Study of
its Development.”OECD. 2012. “Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory
Quality and Performance.” Paris: OECD

Better Regulation Executive. 2008. “Improving Outcomesfrom Health and Safety. A Report to the Governmentby the Better Regulation Executive.” UK Department for
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
Booz Allen Hamilton. 2013. “Building codes for stronger andsafer America. Post Event Report.” Build Strong Coalition.
BRRAG (Building Regulatory Reform Advisory Group). 2000.
“Knowledge, Accountability, Streamlining: Cornerstones
for a New Building Regulatory System in Ontario.”
CAPRA (Probabilistic Risk Assessment Program) and GFDRR(Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery).
2012. “Peru and the Mapping of Seismic Hazard.” CAPRA
Project Highlights, Issue 14. http://www.ecapra.org/sites/
default/files/documents/PH_Issue_14_CAPRA_PERU_
WEB5.pdf.

OECD. 2014. Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections — Best
Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy. Paris: OECD.
Transparency International. 2005. Global Corruption
Report: Corruption in Construction and Post-Conflict
Reconstruction. London: Pluto Press.
Transparency International. 2011. “Bribes Payer Index.” https://www.transparency.org/research/bpi/.
UNCRD (United Nations Centre for Regional Development).
2009. “From Code to Practice. Challenges for Building
Code Implementation And the Further Direction of
Housing Earthquake Safety.” Records and outcomesof International Symposium 2008 on Earthquake Safe
Housing, 28-29 November, Tokyo, Japan.
UN-Habitat (United Nations Human Settlements Programme).
2008. Municipal Financing and Urban Development.
Nairobi: UN-HABITAT.

CHBA (Canadian Home Builders Association). 2001. “Reform of
Building Regulations — What do members think?”

UN-Habitat and GLTN (Global Land Tool Network). 2008. Secure
Land Rights for All. Nairobi: UN-HABITAT.

CTIF (International Association of Fire and Rescue Services).
2015. 2015 Annual Report.

United Nations University. 2014. “World Risk Report.” Alliance
Development Works, UN University, Institute forEnvironment and Human Security.

Department for Communities and Local Government. 2008.
“The Future of Building Control.” UK Communities andLocal Government Publications.
EQE. 1999. “Izmit, Turkey Earthquake of August 17, 1999 (M7.4).”

World Bank. 2006. “Good Practices for Business Inspections:
Guidelines for Reformers.” Washington, DC: WorldBank Group.

Hemson Consulting. 2008. “Examination of Recent Reforms to
the Building Code Act and the Building Permit Process in
the GTA.” Hemson Consulting Ltd.

World Bank. 2011. How to Reform Business Inspections: Design,
Implementation, Challenges. Washington, DC: WorldBank Group.

IBHS (Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety). 2011.
“Rating the States. An Assessment of Residential Building
Code and Enforcement Systems for Life Safety andProperty Protection in Hurricane-prone Regions.” Tampa:
Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety.

World Bank. 2010. Regulatory Governance in Developing
Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

ICC (International Code Council). 2015. 2015 International
Building Code. Code & Commentary. New York: Thomson
Delmar Learning.
ICC. 2012. “International Accreditation Service (IAS).” Building
Department Administration, 4th edition.
IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red CrescentSocieties). 2013. “Better Laws, Safer Communities?
Emerging Themes on How Legislation Can Support
Disaster Risk Reduction.”
IRIN News. 2013. “Zimbabwe’s urban housing crisis.” IRIN
News, March 8, 2013. http://www.irinnews.org/
news/2013/03/08/zimbabwes-urban-housing-crisis.
McKinsey Global Institute. 2014. A Blueprint for Addressing
the Global Affordable Housing Challenge.
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 andDevelopment) 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.

World Bank Enterprise Survey. http://www.enterprisesurveys.
org/.
World Bank and IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2013.
Turkey Green Buildings Market Study. Washington, DC:
World Bank Group.
World Bank. 2012. Managing Disaster Risk for a Resilient Future.
Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
World Bank. 2014. “Doing Business Report 2014: Understanding
Regulations for Small and Medium-Size Enterprises.”
Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
World Bank. 2014. “Pakistan Earthquake 2005. The Caseof Centralized Recovery Planning and Decentralized
Implementation.” Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
World Bank. 2015. “Case Study: Institutional Arrangements
and Construction Permitting Process in Tacloban Cityand Tagbilaran City in the Philippines — A Comparative
Analysis.” Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

Over 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 codesfrom highly developed to developing countries is often counterproductive. A review and analysisof 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 methodsof 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, theauthors argue for increased investment in functional building regulatory and governance systems fordisaster 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